Material Space & Complex Time

ucarr

This is a scientific theory with philosophical ramifications, especially pertaining to ontology_materialism_cosmology. I want to know if the conclusion is persuasive to the extent it seems to follow from the premise_argument_evidence.

Chief Premise – universe is the limit of system

Argument – Incompleteness (Kurt Gödel) is the chief attribute of all foundational systems, including our semi-universe

The Three-Part Parallel

As wave is to particle, so space is to material object, so energy is to motion
In each instance, the b-term of the duet particularizes the diffusion of the a-term

Space = motion without time
For any interval of space, that interval is equal to an interval of motion with elapsed time = 0
likewise
A material object = motion without time
For any linear dimension of a material object, that interval is equal to an interval of motion with elapsed time = 0
thus
Space = a type of material object
thus
The material nature of space

Regarding motion, per the above

Motion = deformation of a material object (as described in Relativity*)

*This is the idea that increase of mass due to acceleration = deformation_warpage of the geometry of a material object. As acceleration approaches light speed, with associated infinity of mass, the geometry of a material object becomes unspecifiable.

In this context, a better word than deformation is liquiformation, a neologism.

liquiformation – the rendering of a material configuration to an indeterminate state prior to reformation

Speculation – Liquiformation may have played a central role in the big bang expansion.

What we’re looking at
A triad that interweaves motion-space-material

This triad sources the multiplexes of material expansion

Supporting Premise – time is a fundamental attribute of existence (Lee Smolin)

Argument – Because time cannot be stopped, not even within a singularity*, it supports multiple tiers of itself. Multi-tiered, or complex time, via relativity, transcends all hard boundaries. The universe is thus incomplete, and shall remain so, as incompleteness, like time (and via time) is a fundamental attribute of existence.
*The disequilibrium necessary to inflation of the singularity wouldn’t be possible without the presence of time within the singularity.

Complex motion_Complex time – The motion of motion & the time of time. The universe has no center & no boundaries because the motion of motion keeps pushing through false paradoxes that expand (from collapsed state) to upward dimensional states that perplex permanently static boundaries.

Like Gödel showed us, every basic system of logic will generate true statements that can’t be justified within the generating system.
in parallel
Every basic phenomenal system will support phenomena that can’t be expanded within itself. This exoteric phenomena appears within its generating system as a paradox. Paradox is a sign post pointing to an upwardly dimensional multiplex wherein the paradox is resolved through expansion.

Example – Complex Motion – Two Atlases, real strong men, are tossing back and forth a tv that’s turned on, displaying moving pictures. These guys never drop the tv, so the game of toss has some complex motion going on as follows:

There’s an old western playing on the tv featuring a runaway stagecoach pulled by four horses with a damsel in distress trying to reign in the chaos without success. Pulling up alongside her comes the hero riding a fast stallion. After some calculation, the hero jumps onto one of the quartet horses, forcefully reigns in the panicking steeds, calms the crisis, thus bringing the calamity to a gradual close. There’s rising tension towards a kiss as the cowboy gazes into the eyes of the girl while making sure she’s alright, but later for that. Maybe a buss after the square dance in the barn.

The old western supplies the motion. The game of toss of the two Atlases provides the motion-of-motion. Since the motion boundaries of the western are upwardly dimensionalized by the game of toss, thus producing independent inertial frames of reference of motion and motion-of-motion, relativity keeps them local and independent and thus the framing boundary of the tv screen is only an apparent boundary, as our perception of the game of toss makes clear to us.

Maybe our expanding universe won’t die the death of equilibrium after all.

Conclusion – Material Space & Complex Time support the incompleteness conceptualization of our semi-universe.

Hillary

Example – Complex Motion – Two Atlases, real strong men, are tossing back and forth a tv that’s turned on, displaying moving pictures. These guys never drop the tv, so the game of toss has some complex motion going on as follows: — ucarr

I haven't seen such powerful example of an accelerated reference frame before!

ucarr

I haven't seen such powerful example of an accelerated reference frame before! — Hillary

Thanks for weighing in, Hillary!

Hillary

↪ucarr

:up:

I'm struggling still with some things you offer, brother ucarr. But at least you offer something new and interesting. That's how philosophy should be! I'll be back! There's a little lady dog staring me in the face with asking eyes. "Wanna walk daddy!" Woofwoof!!!

ucarr

↪Hillary

It's springtime. Fresh air!

Joshs

↪Hillary

But at least you offer something new and interesting. That's how philosophy should be! — Hillary

I have a hard time thinking of theories by physicists as philosophy. I know it’s at least a form of applied philosophy. We use models from physics as proxies for philosophy when we don’t have enough background in actual philosophical discourse, and as result it always ends up being a reinvention of the wheel.

Hillary

↪Joshs

I think I see right through you. You think a physicist knows everything better. Well lemme tellya, I dont. Its just one reality amongst many.

180 Proof

↪Joshs

:up:

Hillary

We use models from physics as proxies for philosophy when we don’t have enough background in actual philosophical discourse, and as result it always ends up being a reinvention of the wheel. — Joshs

Which wheel? I have invented a far better thing than a wheel. A structure on which the universe can inflate into existence repeatedly! The gods did a great job! They had selfish reasons but Ill settle for that! Proxies for philosophy? You feel threatened? How offers a physical model a proxie? It's just a part!

Joshs

↪Hillary

Which wheel? I have invented a far better thing than a wheel. A structure on which the universe can inflate into existence repeatedly! The gods did a great job! They had selfish reasons but Ill settle for that! Proxies for philosophy? You feel threatened? How offers a physical model a proxie? It's just a part! — Hillary

But you haven’t invented , you have reinvented. I’m
not saying your account of the genesis of the physical world from gods is a mere duplication of an extant discourse, I’m saying that it fits very comfortably within a certain era and movement in philosophy. You would be able to enrich your articulation of your worldview by familiarizing yourself with the thinking of some of these authors. It would also make your thinking more accessible to others , by giving them more
routes of access to your ideas. This is the great strength of Continental modes of philosophy.

Hillary

But you haven’t invented , you have reinvented — Joshs

Of course! You think I invented that 5D vacuum structure with virtual particles? Of course not! It were the gods! And they showed me in a dream. Im the humble messenger.

Hillary

You would be able to enrich your articulation of your worldview by familiarizing yourself with the thinking of some of these authors. It would also make your thinking more accessible to others , by giving them more
routes of access to your ideas. This is the great strength of Continental modes of philosophy. — Joshs

:up:

jgill

Chief Premise – universe is the limit of system — ucarr

A material object = motion without time — ucarr

Space = motion without time — ucarr

No lack of imagination here. Limit of what system? However, these are metaphysical hypotheses that have little bearing on physical reality.

Joshs

↪Hillary

Of course! You think I invented that 5D vacuum structure with virtual particles? Of course not! It were the gods! And they showed me in a dream. Im the humble messenger. — Hillary

I do have a question. You chose to appoint a plurality of gods to take the place of a mono-theism. The idea of god as single unified personality was quite an innovation in the history of theology. By conceiving of the divine as unified , we simultaneously saw the human psyche as a autonomous and internally unified. It also gave us a view of the cosmos as a perfect unity. What are you trying to say about us and the world by connecting us back to a plurality of deities rather than the One?

Hillary

Speculation – Liquiformation may have played a central role in the big bang expansion. — ucarr

I've encountered this view while discussing with another user. He compared space with water.

Because time cannot be stopped, not even within a singularity — ucarr

Here I disagree. If you throw a watch in a black hole, it doesn't stop indeed. It gets almosts instantly radiated away by Hawking radiation (the information, that is).

If we consider the 5D quantum structure, the 5D wormhole connecting two hyperbolic spaces) there is no direction of time. It goes to and fro. But indeed, the oscillation (which is by itself a kind of clock) doesn't stop.

Space = a type of material object — ucarr

I agree. But which material?

Supporting Premise – time is a fundamental attribute of existence (Lee Smolin) — ucarr

Agree. But not the clock.

universe is the limit of system — ucarr

Not sure I understand.

The motion of motion is the motions in a moving reference frame?

Hillary

Why are you trying to say about us and the world by connecting us back to a plurality of deities rather than the One?
9m — Joshs

One moment. Gonna make some coffee fir me and my lady...

jgill

Like Gödel showed us, every basic system of logic will generate true statements that can’t be justified within the generating system. — ucarr

Not quite, but who cares?

Complex time — ucarr

You want "complex time"? Here's an example: T=t+ib(t). A ballistic missile defines a trajectory that has the following real part - the normal time in flight = t. For the imaginary part, suppose the missile were to hit an imaginary wall at normal time t and drop to the ground. The normal time it takes to drop to the ground is b(t). :cool:

Hillary

The idea of god as single unified personality was quite an innovation in the history of theology. By conceiving of the divine as unified , we simultaneously saw the human psyche as a autonomous and internally unified. It also gave us a view of the cosmos as a perfect unity. What are you trying to say about us and the world by connecting us back to a plurality of deities rather than the One? — Joshs

Not sure if this was a progression. This idea of a unified abstract omni monster god originates in Xenophanes who wasn't satisfied with the plurality of gods in his time. The idea fitted with the idea of a single abstract mathematical heaven introduced by Plato. The reality was knowable only approximately, in Plato's case by math. It fitted well with the trend of abstraction. But it became less personal (there it is, the impersonal absolute reality). It underlies modern science.

Why can't the universe just be a material temporary version of heaven and life in it? Which in orinciple can make each form of life a god. I know it sounds ridiculous, but why, literally, shouldn't there be whale gods, monkey gods, virus gods even? I dreamt i saw a beautiful place in nature where all were working enthusiastically during the preambles to creation. Collectively they were looking for, the gods particle. Turned out they needed just two! Plus that damned 5D vacuum structure, which appeared in full color, pumping out two universes, in both sides of the wormhole, on the beating. To let a temporary version of heaven inflate periodically. Their reason? Boredom from the eternal life!

Hillary

↪jgill

Complex time, it, is used in relativity.

T=t+ib(t) — jgill

z=t+ib(t)? If t increases ib(t) rotates! That's what happening all around us. The vacuum time fluctuates! Jgill, my man! :grin:

Hillary

For the imaginary part, suppose the missile were to hit an imaginary wall — jgill

The imaginary wall making time imaginary? :chin:

You're taking a walk with us! :joke:

Hillary

Like Gödel showed us, every basic system of logic will generate true statements that can’t be justified within the generating system.
— ucarr

Not quite, but who cares? — jgill

I care! Is it the other way round?

ucarr

Limit of what system? — jgill

By conceiving of the divine as unified , we simultaneously saw the human psyche as a autonomous and internally unified. It also gave us a view of the cosmos as a perfect unity. Why are you trying to say about us and the world by connecting us back to a plurality of deities rather than the One? — Joshs

I've quoted Joshs above as part of my reply to jgill's question at the top. More than a few philosophers want to comprehend "the cosmos as a perfect unity," want to be spiritually subsumed into The One of Platonism, want to resonate with the oscillations of universal Om.

Special Relativity replaces universal time with time dependent on reference frame & spatial position. I think we've got to spend more time navigating the local neighborhoods of existence before presuming to have a valid & practical comprehension of The One.

Metaphysicians can makes claims for the independence of their discipline, except when contradicted by scientific observations of nature bolstered by experimental evidence. Premature attempts to distill philosophy from science amounts to foolish class warfare. The two disciplines need each other.

Universe is the limit of system, my chief premise, has me claiming not even the material universe is a verifiable oneness, not to mention metaphysical speculations about oneness. I think Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem runs through the heart of a viable cosmology. Likewise, the essential reality of a sequence of unique & unrepeatable moments in time declared by Lee Smolin.

The human mind seeks patterns as foundations for its understandings. With respect to the cognitive importance of patterns, I think science is much younger than philosophy, which is to say, far less certain about the meaning (or existence) of "the cosmos as a perfect unity."

↪jgill

System, in general, makes an asymptotic approach to all-inclusive oneness, which is to say, our existence is always approaching but never arriving at oneness. And hallelujah to that! Since we all need something to live for, oneness, heaven & total harmony are the enemy.

The greatest question of all is, "What next?"

ucarr

You want "complex time"? Here's an example: T=t+ib(t). A ballistic missile defines a trajectory that has the following real part - the normal time in flight = t. For the imaginary part, suppose the missile were to hit an imaginary wall at normal time t and drop to the ground. The normal time it takes to drop to the ground is b(t). :cool: — jgill

:up:

ucarr

Not sure if this was a progression. This idea of a unified abstract omni monster god originates in Xenophanes who wasn't satisfied with the plurality of gods in his time. The idea fitted with the idea of a single abstract mathematical heaven introduced by Plato. The reality was knowable only approximately, in Plato's case by math. It fitted well with the trend of abstraction. But it became less personal (there it is, the impersonal absolute reality). Why can't heaven just be a material temporary version of heaven and life in it? Which in orinciple can make each form of life a god. I know it sounds ridiculous, but why, literally, shouldn't there be whale gods, monkey gods, virus gods even? I dreamt i saw a beautiful place in nature where all were working enthusiastically during the preambles to creation. Collectively they were looking for, the gods particle. Turned out they needed just two! Plus that damned 5D vacuum structure, which appeared in full color, pumping out two universes, in both sides of the wormhole, on the beating. To let a temporary version of heaven inflate periodically. Their reason? Boredom from the eternal life! — Hillary

You're onto something here! Keep on truckin'

Hillary

You're onto something here! Keep on truckin' — ucarr

Thanks!
I keep my hands on the wheel! :wink:

Joshs

↪ucarr

Special Relativity replaces universal time with time dependent on reference frame & spatial position. I think we've got to spend more time navigating the local neighborhoods of existence before presuming to have a valid & practical comprehension of The One. — ucarr

But it does not eliminate the idea of a single unified space-time totality within which relative reference and position are orientated. What it does is replace a causal grid with a gestalt . The One god remained important for Einstein.

Metaphysicians can makes claims for the independence of their discipline, except when contradicted by scientific observations of nature bolstered by experimental evidence. Premature attempts to distill philosophy from science amounts to foolish class warfare. The two disciplines need each other. — ucarr

Scientific observations of nature bolstered by experimental evidence are riddled through and. through with metaphysical presuppositions. For instance , what is the r relation between theory-driven interpretation, observation and evidence? Only a science whose metaphysical presuppositions are consistent with those of a philosophical stance can challenge that philosophy.
Special Relativity has nothing to teach phenomenology, whereas phenomenology points to a future of physics.

ucarr

But it does not eliminate the idea of a single unified space-time totality — Joshs

No, it doesn't. However, idea & practical phenomenon are not always the same thing, which is the point of seeking experimental verification by literally countless observers. I don't know if The One god, being intangible, can ever be subjected to an authentically public scrutiny.

Scientific observations of nature bolstered by experimental evidence are riddled through and. through with metaphysical presuppositions. — Joshs

There's no doubt of this and, I say, also, metaphysical commitments are predicated upon would-be scientific observations of nature. And moreover, the interweave of observation-interpretation-evidence falls under the scrutiny of the science of consciousness studies no less than under the ruminations of phenomenology.

Special Relativity has nothing to teach phenomenology, whereas phenomenology points to a future of physics. — Joshs

I would amend this claim as follows,

Special Relativity has nothing to teach the received opinion component of phenomenology, whereas phenomenology points to a conjectured future of physics.

Joshs

↪ucarr

Special Relativity has nothing to teach the received opinion component of phenomenology, whereas phenomenology points to a conjectured future of physics. — ucarr

If you’re trying to distinguish between something you would want to call scientific method from your conception of the methods of inquiry typifying continental
philosophy, as that between experimental conjecture and received opinion, I would strongly suggest that no such distinction can be drawn. A philosophical account is no more or less tentative, and no more or less validated, than a scientific one.

idea & practical phenomenon are not always the same thing, which is the point of seeking experimental verification by literally countless observers. I don't know if The One god, being intangible, can ever be subjected to an authentically public scrutiny. — ucarr

One god, in its most general sense, is precisely what is subjected to an authentically public scrutiny through experimental verification by countless
observers, because the shard commitment to a certain understanding of concepts like ‘observation’ and ‘experimental verification’ already presupposes a certain. metaphysics. In a certain historical era of science, this made God and scientific truth synonymous.

“It is often said that what distinguishes science from other modes of knowledge is that it is not dogmatic, like theology, but rather is willfully fallible, that is, it will quickly alter its hypotheses and claims to ‘truth' based on new evidence. But there are perhaps two ways of understanding this fallibility. In the first, if truth is expressed in propositions that refer to or denote reality, then one could see science, in principle at least, marching toward a kind of complete or ‘absolute' truth, where the descriptions given in propositions will perfectly denote the corresponding reality — the map will become equivalent to the territory. Science, in this view, is an asymptotic progress toward an ideal, and that ideal is the ‘Form of the True,' even if in fact science may never reach this ideal. As Kant showed, it is the idea of God that expresses this ideal of absolute knowledge. Indeed, it has been argued that, in the seventeenth century, science was a secularized theology: the notion of one God as an eternal being with immutable attributes was transferred onto a single Nature governed by a set of unchanging laws (Deus sive natura). Monotheism was transformed into a mono-naturalism that still held on to an eternal form of the true.“(Dan Williams)

jgill

I care! Is it the other way round? — Hillary

What is "true"?

First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." (Raatikainen 2015)

Wiki

jgill

System, in general, makes an asymptotic approach to all-inclusive oneness, which is to say, our existence is always approaching but never arriving at oneness. — ucarr

The allegory of all I've done in a nutshell.

ucarr

↪jgill

Thanks for the correction. So, as to the following quote,

Like Gödel showed us, every basic system of logic will generate true statements that can’t be justified within the generating system. — ucarr

I amend it to,

Like Gödel showed us, every basic system of logic will generate moot statements.

Material Space & Complex Time

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions