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?

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. — Justin Peterson

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.
—————

I'm saying that everything is a computation — Justin Peterson

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

nulled by the planets moving until they find a comfortable place, where everything becomes still — Justin Peterson

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

I don't think you realize that we are making the same argument here — Justin Peterson

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.

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.

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.

I agree a lot with your line of thinking, except I'm not too keen on the multiverse. That's just a way to conveniently explain away fine-tuning. I don't think your philosophy rests upon this, though. I prefer q theory.

Also I think beyond the words you're using, you have to ultimately concede that it is a mystery. The big bang hasn't happened; the universe is over. Yes. What is this, though? It's shapes and forms and glib utterances. It's nonsense.

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. — Justin Peterson

Already confusing. What "two states"? It sounds like the two states may be the conscious and unconscious states, but then where does the "because of this" come into play? Because of what? This implies that the two states of thought are the basis for the conscious and unconscious mind. Fine, but then what are those states? It's ambiguous.

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 — Justin Peterson

Sounds like quasi-Eastern philosophy/spirituality, but it's very vague. You have to do better explaining your terms. You also lost me with the Big Bang references, although I think I know what you're getting at. The Big Bang is a theory that concerns the first moments of the universe -- it has nothing whatsoever to say about the "All" and the "Nothing." There's a lot of woo-woo surrounding it, as there is with quantum mechanics, but it's best not to interject it.

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. — Justin Peterson

But you've said nothing about what time is. We don't know whether it'll cease or not until we know what it is. Is it motion? Change? Duration? A measurement? A form of sensibility? A unity of ecstasies? Is it essentially space (as in Bergson)?

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

This has been argued in the East and the West. It's no surprise that time consistently plays a central role in philosophy, religion, and science -- but while we may privilege the "now" (the present), that's not how we live our lives, and when we try to live this way (through meditation, mindfulness practices, etc), although this may be beneficial in many ways, there are still multiple aspects of our being that we still simply overlook. It's impossible to be aware of everything in any given moment. In fact, often times this gets in the way of habitually, skillfully navigating the world. A lot of this we WANT to be "second nature" and largely unconscious. (See the Centipede Dilemma.)

Better to not reinvent the wheel when it comes to defining time, existence, etc. Better to familiarize yourself with some of the unpretentious work that's been done on the subjects.

My question is, what is the spirit if not our thoughts? — Justin Peterson

This is equating the human being with thinking -- the λογον (logon) of ζοον εψηον λογον, which has a long history going back at least to Aristotle. Your real question should be: "What is 'thought'?" and "What is 'spirit'"? Approaching these concepts historically (and etymologically) can be illuminating indeed. It'll give you some sense of where we are.

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

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. — Justin Peterson

Time and existence are in no readily apparent conflict. At least they are not in one that I can ascertain.

Time and existence are inseparable. There is no such thing as instantaneous existence. There is always a period of time involved. We cannot always know how long something has existed, but we can know that there is a duration of time involved.

I dunno, man......awful lot of free-thinking there, but with a conspicuous lack of method to justify it. I’m sure you understand, that for people who summarily reject such notions as soul, infinite knowledge, the unconscious/subconscious barrier, and so on, no method will be sufficient.

Interesting read, and I appreciate the effort, but I can’t do much with it, myself. I just don’t really care about the origin of all things.

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.

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? — Justin Peterson

Justin!

No, that's basically conditional logic or the logic of conditionals, probabilities, truth tables etc.. Logical possibility/necessity is the formal-logical consistency about the terms of a proposition.

The common example of logical necessity that I like to use is the proposition or statement:" There is at least one true proposition." Call this proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I say that A is false. Call that proposition B: "A is false." But if A is false, so is B, because A is a proposition. And if A is false there are no true propositions. So A has to be true. It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.

The now consists of everything, past, present, and future. What we perceive as time is just the idea of the computation of all things — Justin Peterson

Are you suggesting that time, then, appears to be somewhat illusionary (when we cognize, or otherwise our so-called perception of time itself, i.e., time zones, time dilation, relativity, etc... .)?

Is there more than one present? Because in the past we always knew it to be the present.

Time is an abstraction from the "continuous creative becoming" which is reality.
Time itself does not exist, change (becoming) is the fundamental nature of reality.

Time is an abstraction from the "continuous creative becoming" which is reality.
Time itself does not exist, change (becoming) is the fundamental nature of reality. — prothero

Well said!!

Time, like mathematics, is yet another abstract. An abstract truth(?). But time can also be an (as in time zones, clocks, calendars, sun dials, etc.), arbitrary method of measurement.

Perhaps another question is; like math, did both math and time have an independent existence where human's just stumble upon its truth from time to time through such discovery, or is it a human invention?

All of this seems paradoxical... . How can Time be an arbitrary human invention, yet unreasonably effective like math in describing/measuring the universe(?). Yet mathematics is a truth that never changes with time - the paradox.

In defining time, change is the underlying fundamental nature of reality ( as you said) that I think is the only thing consistent. And the only other thing consistent might be that it seems both time and math are abstract truth's, of sorts?

The nature of reality is indeed quite a mystery.

I wonder what time seems like to a person suffering from continuous amnesia? No memories from second to second. Does time "pass"?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

I think you have to ask questions.
Without change (becoming) there would be no time. We measure time by change (rising setting sun, seasons, swinging pendulum, oscillations crystal, cesium atom emissions). Time is an abstraction from change. Time cannot exist without change. Change is fundamental to reality and time is just a convenient abstracted concept depend on change for any "meaning". Would would time be in a changeless world? The relativity of time (the time dilitation form) comes from the fact that the rate of the processes(and all other physical, chemical and biological processes) we use to measure time are altered by gravity or acceleration.

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.

So the past "present" is still the present?

Because I know/knew the so-called past to be the present with utter certainty, whereas I know nothing of the past except for remembering that it was the present.

I'm not sure what recursion is in a computer. But I believe there is one present, only it isn't just my experience now.
I believe what happens now can interact with consciousness in the so-called past, making it still the present in a sense.

Without change (becoming) there would be no time. — prothero

This is actually the opposite of what is true. The passing of time is required for change. So without time there would be no change. Otherwise time becomes merely conceptual, an abstraction which we create through observations of change. But clearly, the passing of time, since it is a property common to all changes, is something other than change itself. So there is something other than change which is the passing of time, which cannot be a human abstraction.

Otherwise time becomes merely conceptual, an abstraction which we create through observations of change. — Metaphysician Undercover

MU!

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.

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

Time and math are arbitrary abstracts that humans discovered, and also helped develop. Both of which are discoveries and uncoveries of existence, as it were. The only assignment we can make to those is the 'subordination' of the two.

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.

Time and math are arbitrary abstracts that humans discovered, and also helped develop. Both of which are discoveries and uncoveries of existence, as it were. The only assignment we can make to those is the 'subordination' of the two. — 3017amen

Time is an abstract concept based on change.
Math is an abstract concept based the order found in the universe.
The concept of time is meaningless, useless without change as is math without order..
Maths would likely never have been developed without the regularity and order found in nature.

Time is an abstract concept based on change.
Math is an abstract concept based the order found in the universe.
The concept of time is meaningless, useless without change as is math without order..
Maths would likely never have been developed without the regularity and order found in nature. — prothero

Prothero!

Generally, no exceptions taken. However, what would you consider your definition of order to be.. ?

We also know math can describe the structures of material world, but what about the non-material world (consciousness) or even math itself? Would it make sense to ask, can math describe math ( can math describe itself)?

I'm afraid we are back to trying to explain the nature of existence...

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.