On the Matter of Time and Existence

Justin Peterson

My opinion of thought is such that it can be defined as conflict between two states. It is because of this that there is the conscious and subconscious mind. In the conscious mind there is conflict between multiple ideas or perceptions of a given subject. When the conscious mind has accepted one thing to be true, it is passed to the subconscious mind. Therefore, for all propositions to be true there will be no conflict and so there will be no identity of the "self". The self will determine itself to be everything. So there would be no difference between the definition of "me", and the definition of "you". There is simply the All, and the Nothing. It's possible this was what had happened before the Big Bang, speaking under the notion that the Big Bang was simply the composition of all timeless possibilities, and after the Big Bang existed multiple universes in which these possibilities took form. Our Universe is simply one instance of a compilation of all possible scenarios. Therefore, there is a Universe in which I am living your life, and you are living mine. It is because of this there would be no such thing as identity, because all things are congruent with the other. The only distinguishing factor would be that of the supposed existence of the soul, which I would be tied to, and that provides the only sense of identity that could be given in such a scenario.My philosophy is that the Universe is moving towards a state of balance. "Platonic philosophy is based upon the postulation of three orders of being: that which moves unmoved, that which is self-moved, and that which is moved"(The Secret Teachings of All Ages 21). My interpretation of this is: that which moves unmoved would be time, that which is self-moved would be consciousness, and that which is moved would be that which occurs as a result of the interaction between the unmoved and the self-moved. In other words, the immovable would be the divine as well as the collection of all perception brought on by the self-moved. That which is moved is the processes of science as well as the aforementioned conflicting of thoughts that lead to perceptions of reality and so another way of perceiving the world. I wonder then, if the Big Bang never happened, and time is instead the illusion of the interaction between the self-moved and the moved. Let me put it this way, balance is the result of creation and destruction. Where there are animals that perceive, there is a lack of balance in understanding - but balance in perception and morals(primarily influenced by survival - hence, equality) . Where there are humans, there is a balance in understanding (as a whole) - but a lack in perception(living in the now) and morals. As time goes on there is the creation and destruction of different forms of consciousness until eventually there will be a completely balanced consciousness(we give consciousness to computers, who have a balance of morals and understanding, but still lack perception). In conjunction with Moore's Law, it can be said that eventually any form of rational "thought" done by a computer will be completely unbiased, and without conflicting ideas, then all ideas in this form of consciousness are essentially eternal (“So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. -Socrates), because it is only conflict in ideas that take time to process(Hence the interaction between the Conscious and the Subconscious, the mind and the soul). After a vast amount of time, the gravitational pull of the planets and the stars will become equal, and so the stars and the planets will be immovable. It is at this point that time ceases. According to my theory, the Big Bang never happened as we all exist within the Big Bang(or the very condensed atom that was said to explode). Therefore, the divine being that is often referred to already exists, as does every idea that has been thought or will be thought. However, the process of attaining that form of consciousness is what is occurring through this perception of time that we are experiencing at this moment. That is why it is argued that the past and the future do not exist, only the now.

jgill

Let us assume that there is only one possible world. If this is the case, what are the consequences of any proposition being possible? — Justin Peterson

Unimaginable chaos. Might want to trim your hypothesis a tad. :roll:

Justin Peterson

That was a proposition that was given to me as extra credit on an exam in my philosophy class, what followed is my extended response.

jgill

My proposition: No proposition is possible. :cool:

Mww

thought is such that it can be defined as conflict between two states. It is because of this that there is the conscious and unconscious mind. In the conscious mind there is conflict between multiple ideas or perceptions of a given subject. When the conscious mind has accepted one thing to be true, it is passed to the subconscious mind. — Justin Peterson

Ok....so....thought is the conflict between two states.......of mind? There are two conflicting states of mind, which can be used as the definition of thought?

In the conscious mind multiple ideas or perceptions conflict (with themselves?). When something is accepted as true, it is passed to the subconscious mind.

When a thing is accepted as true, there wouldn’t be that particular conflict in the conscious mind, and if that true thing is passed to the SUB-conscious mind, the other half of the definition of thought, the unconscious mind, is left out, which means the conflict with it shouldn’t have occurred, which means there shouldn’t have been that thought accepting a true thing, which raises the question, how did the true thing get accepted and then passed on? Can a thing be true without the thought of it, or the thought about it?

Could be, dunno. I never took a philosophy class, so........don’t mind me none.

Justin Peterson

↪Mww

Let us assume that there is only one possible world. — Justin Peterson

You raise a valid point. The unconscious was a typo on my part, I meant to refer to the subconscious. I think that the conscious mind is what tries to make sense of its surroundings. I.e. When you fight with someone, you either blame the other person or you blame yourself. Either way your conscious mind will find a way to accept one view or the other so that it is not always on the mind. After that it is passed to the subconscious mind, which (almost) instantly interprets the emotions that are set about how the person should react to any given situation on the subject. More often than not, if the person sees that the view conflicts with what the person deems to be true then the person's identity is at stake because anyone with an average level of pride has acknowledged that the viewpoint is level with their self-identity, which is a mistake. The thing is, to release oneself from this connection between belief and self-identity is to rid oneself of seeing reality as being only one thing and not the other. And so it is closer to the level of balance and therefore closer to divinity.. in my opinion.

Justin Peterson

↪jgill

Yeah that was his response, I didn't receive any credit lol.

Justin Peterson

↪Mww

The conflict I'm referring to can be basically anything, but most often it is the battle of self-identity.. or basically "I am what I think you think I am." (can't remember who said that). It can also be learning, anytime you learn something you have conflicting ideas about how to do something(at least with methods, memorization is something else), until is understood and therefore passed onto the subconscious mind to be regarded as the best way to go about something until that idea receives some kind of conflict, in which case it is brought back to the level of the conscious mind.

Mww

↪Justin Peterson

Understood. Thanks.

So how does any of that relate to time and existence?

Justin Peterson

↪Mww

I'm having this same conversation with my philosophy teacher at the moment. I'm too lazy to tailor the response to your question, but maybe what's written here will clear up any misconception.

From what I understand about the "unseen", from the Trial and Death of Socrates, was that he was unafraid of death because he was confident that his spirit would live on.
My question is, what is the spirit if not our thoughts? If there are multiple universes, then there exists other forms of me with different thoughts. Hence, my thoughts
do not determine my self-identity. Also, if there is a universe where I am living your life, and you are living mine, then my thoughts (somewhere) are the same as yours.
Therefore, everything must be connected. (I reallyy hope I didn't commit a fallacy there lol).

Now in response, one possible world wouldn't be so different, in fact it would null and void everything I've said. My theory relies on the proposition of there
being multiple universes, in which the one we are living in is one. The atom from the Big Bang however, comprises of all these Universes into one space a.k.a
the fourth dimension.. or something. Therefore, all the potentialities and actualities do not consitute a branch of the multiverse, but instead the entirety of it,
the big bang being the source of all branches of the universes. In terms of realization not making the world vastly different divulges the theory of Schroedinger's Cat,
which I will not get into because I may bring to surface ideas that are incongruent with the topic at hand. The quote from Plato was less about his philosophy and more about the
quote itself, as well as many other philosophers labelling the divine as "immovable". It can be argued that things such as depression, anxiety, and drug addictions are
a matter of perception, and in my opinion not enough is known about the brain to say otherwise. Philosophy itself is the subject of combatting many of these things,
and Aristotle himself beleived that his conclusion in moral philosophy rests on the perfection of virtues, which doesn't exist, which is why those things exist to
even the most humble. In my opinion too, anxiety and depression are the result of having an emotional connection to the things that affect and cause such emotional responses.
I consider myself a stoic, and while I do not deny the factor that chemical imbalances play a role in such emotions, I do believe that anxiety and depression are much
the effects of some underlying uncertainty and desire. To minimize the effects of those emotions would mean to become comfortable with uncertainty and factors that are outside
of our control. Our definitions of the moved coincide with each other, but something cannot be moved without time, and it is because of time that our brains are able to
send messages, that our food is able to be cooked, etc. But to acknowledge God would mean to acknowledge the fact that he exists in a world without time. Instead, my argument
is that our definition of time isn't compatible with what I am proposing, instead that the processes that occur when everything is possible has already played out, as the
divine being is the connection of every single one of us, and that the soul isn't some body, but instead consists of our ideas. Hence, since the divine consciousness in the end of time
is able to understand and perceive our ideas and experiences, then our souls live on, bound to this omnipotent presence.

QuixoticAgnostic

Yeah that was his response, I didn't receive any credit lol. — Justin Peterson

Wait, what? How is that the case? By "any proposition" does he mean "any one" proposition or "any and all" propositions? Although, I don't like the concept of "possible worlds" AT ALL so I wouldn't be surprised if there's some strange philosophical stipulation.

Justin Peterson

↪QuixoticAgnostic

I think I might have misinterpreted his argument by thinking he meant "any and all" when he probably did mean "any one".

ernestm

The unconscious was a typo on my part, I meant to refer to the subconscious. — Justin Peterson

Msybe your unconscious is working in your favor. You advocate a Jungian model, and Jung called it unconscious, not subconscious. The significant difference, scientifically, is that you don't need to prove unconscious thought is actually thought at all for his model to work.

Justin Peterson

↪ernestm

Oh that's pretty cool, that's the exact argument I'm trying to propose.

QuixoticAgnostic

↪Justin Peterson

I think the mistake would be the opposite: if he meant "any one", as in if there is this possible world, and I say something is possible, then that possibility must be necessary. If he meant "any and all" propositions were possible, then that would just lead to an infinite infinity of contradictions.

Justin Peterson

↪QuixoticAgnostic

Ohh I think you might be right. Granted what I wrote on the test was no where near as long and explanatory as what I have written here. This was the prompt:

Let us assume that there is only one possible world. If this is the case, what are the consequences of any proposition being possible? In other words, what follows from ◆P?

Justin Peterson

↪QuixoticAgnostic

I understand why you don't like the idea of of "possible worlds" but in my opinion, in a reality with no creator, it doesn't make sense to me that all things would not be possible.

QuixoticAgnostic

↪Justin Peterson

It's not that things aren't possible, it's whether or not there's "some world" in which the possible things are necessary. I haven't looked into modal philosophy too much, but I'd figure that by possible we simply mean that which we don't know to some degree of certainty whether the proposition is true or not.

As for your teacher's problem, adding that last part ◆P suggests to me that he did mean "any one". So then, if only one possible world exists, what does it mean if it's possible for there to be an alien on Mars? It means there's an alien on Mars. I suppose what he's thinking is that you could then say, "well, it's possible that there isn't an alien on Mars too, so that's a contradiction", but who says that that second proposition is possible? We were only asked to consider one proposition, and if that proposition is possible, then it's necessary, and so its negation is not possible.

Justin Peterson

↪QuixoticAgnostic

I see what you're saying, that's actually what I was going to bring up when I was referring to Schroedinger's cat. Maybe we as humans have the power to create possibilities so long as they coincide with our current view of reality. In other words, what if Radio waves didn't exist before Nikola Tesla discovered them? What if it's because Nikola Tesla invented it that it was able to exist before he discovered it? Does that make sense? I guess what I'm saying is, if no consciousness can yet perceive something to be true, then discovers it, whos to say it even existed in the first place? Aka Schroedinger's cat

Justin Peterson

↪QuixoticAgnostic

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.

Justin Peterson

↪QuixoticAgnostic

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

QuixoticAgnostic

↪Justin Peterson

Well, why do you believe it?

Justin Peterson

↪QuixoticAgnostic

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.

QuixoticAgnostic

↪Justin Peterson

Well, I can certainly sympathize with that optimism. I suppose if any miracles do happen, they'd come from the mind, rather than elsewhere in nature. That said, although I do entertain romantic ideas more than I perhaps should, I am mostly grounded reality quite literally, in that I accept the physical world as it's been described and experimented with and come to the conclusion that it is self-contained, ordered, and describable. So to accept a disembodied, incorporeal mind has a causal effect in the world through a biological apparatus (the brain) is a leap in logic to accept. But the mind sure is amazing, and probably underestimated. I just wouldn't take the mysteriousness and our ignorance of it to reach unsubstantiated conclusions through literal magical thinking (thinking that disobeys the laws of nature)..

jgill

If there are multiple universes, then there exists other forms of me with different thoughts. — Justin Peterson

Multiple universe theory doesn't imply things or people in this universe are duplicated in others.

what if Radio waves didn't exist before Nikola Tesla discovered them? — Justin Peterson

Hertz?

Because I think that anything that is thought with enough certainty can be true — Justin Peterson

I sincerely believe the moon is made of green cheese.

......................................................

Sorry to be so picky, but I am a mathematician. I enjoy reading your posts, Justin. This is an enjoyable thread. :smile:

Justin Peterson

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.

Justin Peterson

↪jgill

Forgot to quote

jgill

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? — Justin Peterson

Well, if I had the artistic talents my daughter possesses I probably would have made more money! But, alas, I don't, so it's best I stuck with academics. Though there is not much money there, either. :cool:

Mww

I see you removed the false proposition “all possible propositions are necessary”. Every proposition, that is, all subject/copula/predicate compositions, are possible; there is no such thing as an impossible proposition.

If there are multiple universes, then there exists other forms of me with different thoughts. — Justin Peterson

In 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.
—————-

the theory of Schroedinger's Cat — Justin Peterson

.....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.
—————-

something cannot be moved without time — Justin Peterson

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.

Motion in time, not because of it. Much more parsimonious to suppose physical things are moved by physical things (and yes, a gravitational field is a thing, according to Feynman anyway), than to suppose physical things are moved by immaterial notions. Begs the question....why wouldn’t Pythagoras’ formula move the needle on a voltmeter?

The rest.....too divinical, too psychological, too.....Hegelian.....for me. But, you’re more than welcome to it, so have fun with it.

3017amen

That was a proposition that was given to me as extra credit on an exam in my philosophy class, what followed is my extended response.

— Justin Peterson

That is why it is argued that the past and the future do not exist, only the now. — Justin Peterson

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")?

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.

Justin Peterson

↪Mww

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.

On the Matter of Time and Existence

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions