Category Archives: Time and Space

The Lie of the Smallest Particle: Greater implications for existence and consciousness (Part Two, Conclusion)

Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, reason, Time and Space, , , , , , ,

Taking a cue from quantum physics itself—and it is important to understand this, for I am basing my arguments not upon mererly my own conjecture, but on conclusions physics itself ineluctably makes about the nature of reality—beyond a certain point the reduction of the physical literally stops being emprical. Beyond a certain point physical reality can no longer be sensed, because it has simply been reduced too far (it is too small). Beyond a certain point physical reality can no longer be said to possess mass, which means it does not, in the emprical sense, occupy space—it is volume-less; it no longer exists dimensionally, and thus it also posssesses no temporal value. In other words, empirically speaking, it exists no where and at no time. Physical reality at this point cannot be verified empirically, but is only rationally inferred.

The evidence for the rational assumption of reality’s existence beyond the place of physicality—beyond the senses—is the mathematics, which are a purely abstract cognitive contrivance…that’s the whole point of math. Math, like music notes on paper, implies the existence of physical reality, but it is not physical reality itself. For if it was, then it would no longer be math, it’s as simple as that.

The effects of these non-emprical yet existent objects, which are referred to as quanta, are said to possess rational existence because they mathematically correlate. In other words, the effects on the physical universe of the quanta are predicted by the math. When atoms are smashed and certain effects recorded, the effects occur in ways that the mathematical rendering of quanta predict, with sufficient repeatability, and this is how, not via direct empirical observation, the quanta (massless, timeless, spaceless particles of reality) are said to objectively exist.

And here we see that empiricism and objectivity are completely distinct. Quantum physics, if we accept its validity, proves that reality does not need to by physical to be be utterly objective, actual, existent, and real.

I have no reason to believe that the mathematics are spurious, (though I understand that by the nature of quantum physics there is always some endemic degree of uncertainty, and this is likely because mathematics is essentially the breaking up of infinity into units, which makes absolute claims ultimately impossible, but science nevertheless is able to get close enough). I’m sure the math is perfectly functional; I have no doubt that it works, and I have no problem assuming that quanta exist and act the way science describes and accepting the mathematical context.

That isn’t my point.

I have no problem with science when it functions as science, and not as philosophy; I do not doubt the mathematical data…believe me, I haven’t the abstract skills to know the difference between good or bad calculus—that’s well beyond my skill set. I’d no sooner argue with Stephen Hawking about the veracity of mathematics than I would a pilot about the veracity of flight. My problem here is the abject conflation of that which is rationally inferred with that which is empirically validated.  Quantum physics is simply not empirical science, even by science’s own definitions (though utterly absent science’s admission, which is hypocritical). The fact that quantum particles must be rationally inferred through the abstracton of mathematics doesn’t necessarily negate the validity of the claims that they nevertheless objectively exist.

My goal here is to show that at some point we must admit that existence—that that which can be said to objectively be—is not strictly a matter of physical, empirical proof, but also, if not ultimately, a matter of reason, and reason is cognitive, and cognition is consciousness. In other words, at some point we must admit that it is the observer, the Conscious Ones, who must declare what is real and what is not; what exists and what doesn’t; what is true and what is lie. Quantum physics is evidence that objective realty does not exist outside of man—or specifically, his consciousness; his ability to conceptualize himself, his environment, and their relative relationships, but wholly includes him, affirms him, necessitates him, relies upon him, and heeds him. This is not sollipsism, but it is, at root, an acknowledgement that reason—rational consistency—can be a plumb-line for truth and realtiy, not only empiricism. Existence and truth do not end at the limit of observation or sensory experience. Quantum physics shows us that just because you cannot observe that something is there, you can still reason that it is there, and that that reason suffices as objective evidence that it is indeed there. One does not, and cannot, sense it is there—for it is utterly beyond observation—yet one may still objectively know that it is actually there; actually true. And this is, again, because of reason. Reason, which is cognitive, which is conscious, is a means, and I would even argue is the fundamental means, of accessing objective realtiy and objective truth.

END

The Lie of the Smallest Particle: Greater implications for existence and consciousness (Part One)

Determinism, General Philosophy, Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, reason, scientific determinism, Time and Space, , , ,

The broader point I am trying to make with the last two articles on the lie of the “smallest particle”—a particle with no dimensions and no sub parts, which physics acknowledges as existing—is that at some point, no matter how hard we ignore it, or do not acknowledge it, or lack the wisdom or critical thinking skills to see it, empiricism runs out. At some point the ability of the observer (man) to sense reality (that is, using the sensory transmitters of taste, touch, vision, hearing, smelling) breaks down and can only be accessed consciously. Now, by “consciously” please understand that I am not talking sollipsism or mysticism or faith, I am talking reason…the rational (non-contradictory) integration of concepts, which is a process that is wholly cognitive. That is, is a product of man’s mind, and not a product of his senses. Indeed, I submit that the ability to conceptualize precedes the senses in the rational metaphysical chain…or perhaps better said, the senses are a function of man’s ability to conceptualize his existential context (‘enviroment’) and not the other way around. But an expansion on that topic is best left to another article.

At any rate, speaking of mysticism, I submit that the objectivists, empiricists, scientific determinists, scientific rationalists are the real mystics, for they are the ones who ignore where reason takes them, insisting that only that which can be sensed is objective; and when the senses break down, as in quantum physics, conflate the part of physical reality which can literally only exist as mathematical equations, which are catagorical functions of man’s (the obeserver’s) ability to conceptualize, which is the foundation of consciousness…yes, they conflate the mathematical equations with empirical proof; that is, the wholly conceptual (math) is the empirical nature of the quanta.

Impossible.

No, my friends, the objectivists, rationalists, and determinists are the true hypocrites…are the true peddlers of determinist, mystic forces which act as the tyrannical overlords of creation and reality, with the minds of men—those very minds which create the formulas which describe the quantum universe in the first place—relegated to rank illusion, with only those “enlightened” souls able to know the truth. Men, you see, do not create the mathematics which describe the unobservable-yet-still-empirical reality of the quantum universe, they merely “discover” them. And only those given the “grace to perceive”—the particular intellectual proclivities necessary to grasp their hyper-complex design—can really understand. The rest of us are to simply accept their scientific wisdom on faith, as though a divine command, and to punt the explicit-yet-conveniently-ignored rational contradictions (e.g. waves of spacetime) into the abyss of “unknowable mystery”.

But here’s the truth: Objectivists, determinists, empricists openly (though they may not know it themselves, for they are much blinded by hubris and religious zeal) deny the right of anyone else to hold mystic ideas. Everyone else is a fool. Everyone else is deceived and a deceiver. Oh, they can demand fealty to their gods and goddesses—the quanta revealed through quantum theory and the cosmic noise generated by the Church of Billion-Dollar-Atom-Smashers—but the rest of humanity…well, god forbid that they should ever give any mind or deference to other divine ideas. Only the pernicious, mendacious, indolent, and simple would deny the supremacy of the gods of science. Only the irredeemably immoral, the unwashed barbarian, would reject the enlightened sight of  the Preisthood of the White Lab Coats.

Yet what is the difference between “Empirical Church” and other churches? We are told that the difference is that there is no actual faith involved in believing the “scientific evidence”, and this is because it is observable; tangible; physical; actual; sense-able; that science believes is observably distinct from this or that, or him or her. That what they believe can be seen and measured. It requires no more faith to believe in the truth of the quanta than it does a bowl of oatmeal.

But does it?

Can you observe that which is dimensionless, possessing no sub parts, and thus existing at no place, and in no time? In other words, can you empirically observe that which isn’t actually there?

I think you know the answer to that one.

And the answer is—faith.

END part one

Science Confirms the Existence of Gravitational Waves; Reason Does Not (Part 4-Conclusion)

Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, reason, Space, Time and Space, , , , , ,

Picking up where we left off in part four:

If space is itself a thing, through their implicit objectification via gravitational waves, then in what vacuum does space exist that it may be displaced in waves? And why should this vacuum—the vacuum in which space exists in order that it may be displaced—not also be objectified and thus subject to displacement via some cosmic episode? And if that is the case, then this second vacuum must then occupy another vacuum in which it is now displaced. And so on and so on and so on, as the fallacy of infinite logical reducibilty determines. Science has, in addition to discovering literal black holes, dug for itself a figurative black hole in the form of complete rational inconsistency.

LIkewise is the case with time—for we should not ignore the “time” component of “spacetime” waves. If time can fluctuate—be displaced in waves—then it is by definition not fundamental…it is not absolute. Time is a finite continuum, and the logical implications for this profound. The declaration of “gravitational waves” mean that temporality itself can shift into different spatial locations. In the same way thus that gravitational waves imply, contradictorily, variations in the where of space, they imply variations in the when of time. Except that time cannot itself have a when, and this is because it is the when.

[Note: The point of the metric tensor (the mathematical coordinate system of “spacetime”) is to graph both the where of X and the when, as “when” and “where” are corollary. And this because space implies relative movement (of objects), and movement implies temporality. It is important to note then that according to the metric tensor (as well as logic in general) both when and where are a continuum upon which the physical universe is perpetually moving. Thus though an object may appear to be sitting still to an observer, it is constantly in spatial flux. Because when and where (time and space) are corollary it is erroneous to claim that an object which is sitting still is only moving temporally and not spatially, as though movement through space (or upon the spatial component of the continuum) can be distinct from movement through time. An object is always moving simultaneously through space and time, again because these things are corollary, which is why the metric tensor is referred to in the decidedly un-distinct “spacetime”. In other words, existence is perpetually active…existence, or being, is itself movement. An object which is sitting still is nevertheless moving through space via—what I would posit as—the root action of being, just as it is moving through time via—what I would posit as—the root moment of now. As for the observer, and this should perhaps be examined in detail in a later article—he is always only directly observing the root “being” and the “now” of any given object. All object states of linear travel and/or future an past are entirely conceptual.]

So time then, according to the implied logic of gravitational waves as fluctuations in spacetime, has a specific temporal value at any given moment. In other words, time (somehow) exists in time…time itself is subordinate to an external temporal continuum. And if this is so then to what temporal continuum is that second temporal continuum subordinate?  And then to what temporal continuum is that third subordinate? And so on and so on, into the same black hole of reiteration and redundancy where pace has been so thoughtlessly cast.

The conclusion of this article series then is thus: I am not (necessarily) doubting that physicists have recorded something subliminal perhaps directly related to the black hole collision observed in 2015, but they most certainly did not record “disturbances in the curvature of spacetime…that propagate as waves outward at the speed of light.”

END part three—conclusion

Science Confirms the Existence of Gravity Waves; Reason Does Not (Part 3)

Metaphysics, Metaphysics of Time, Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, reason, scientific determinism, Space, Time and Space, , , ,

“Gravitational Waves are ‘ripples’ in space–time…”

“‘Waves’ of changing space–time would propagatein all directions away from the source like waves inwater caused by a stone…”

-Caltech LIGO page on gravitational waves

Referencing back to part two of this article series, the logical fallacy discussed there relative to space and time is what science commits when it clams that “gravity waves are fluctuations in spacetime”: space and time manifest volume and temporality to themselves; they act relative to themselves, which is redundant and contradictory. Space and time are objectified as distinct, not fundamental (i.e. the context for the relative existence of physical reality-that is, physical objects), and then subsequently asserted to act as distinct objects relative to themselves. By both presuming a fundamentality and irreducibility to spacetime and obejctifying spacetime as a distinct object which interacts as a material object with other objects in the physical universe by being displaced in waves as a consequence of certain massive object interaction, science reveals its ignorance of the difference between metaphysics and physics, and pretends that they are one and the same, and that the metaphysical manifests as the physical, and vice versa. Which constitutes an outright embarrassing intellectual error on the part of those (physicists and mathematicians) who are widely considered to be the brightest minds humanity has to offer. This is not surprising, as the scientific community at best pays lip service to metaphyscis, and when it does it is usually in the form of some scientist who happens to be an adherent of some organized religion who is espousing scientific phenomenon as mrerely proclaiming the wonders of the Divine. In other words, proclaiming that science constitutes a validation of the mystical. And that’s not actually dealing with the metaphysics so much as punting them into the cosmic abyss of “God’s mystery”…which is it’s own brand of codswallop that we won’t be dealing with here.

Here’s the problem: Space and time simply cannot be relative to the physical universe without fundamentally nullifying their very nature through redundancy and self-nullifying contradiction. Space (we will deal specifically with space here), once objectified, becomes a distinct entity itself—the vacuum, in reality, the absence of existence (that is, the absence of that which IS, is really a metaphysical context in which the relative relationships of those things which do exist becomes possible), becomes physical…it becomes not the absence of that which IS but something which IS, physically, itself. This being the case, space must have its own location, a location which is now relative to other objects which physically exist. In other words, space must now occupy space. And thus by occupying space may thus be displaced as “waves of gravity”.

But if space is actually what is implied and outright proclaimed by science and all rational and conventional defintions…that is, if space is indeed a vacuum—is the absence of that which exists—and thus does not and cannot occupy space, then it is, ipso facto, fundamental. For nothingness, by definition, is by nature infinite. But the infintity of the metaphysical is of course not directly (or, perhaps better said, not physically) compatible with the finity of the physical. Space, being the vacuum, and not a thing itself, thus exists nowhere. Thus, it cannot be displaced in waves, for there is literally nowhere for it to go. Waves by definition indicate a displacement of the medium which is “waving”, therefore, there can be no waves in a medium which cannot by its nature be displaced.

END part 3

Science Confirms the Existence of Gravitational Waves; Reason does Not (Part 2)

General Philosophy, Man's Ability, Metaphysics, Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, reason, scientific determinism, Space, Time and Space, , , ,

“Gravitational Waves are ‘ripples’ in space–time…”

“‘Waves’ of changing space–time would propagate in all directions away from the source like waves in water caused by a stone…”

-Caltech LIGO page on gravitational waves

*

Space cannot both be a vacuum and occupy a vacuum…e.g. “waves of spacetime”, where space, the vacuum, is displaced into the vacuum of itself.  And time cannot both be temporality and occupy a temporal location. In other words, time cannot have or possess specific temporal value—e.g. “the end of time; the beginning of time”. It cannot fluctuate with space in waves or ripples because these fluctuations imply shifting temporal changes within time itself—that time, can move with space to shift its own temporal location. This is simply impossible, because it contradicts time itself. Time cannot itself posses a specific temporal value which can then shift with space in the presence of gravitational changes. This is a redundancy which nullifies the very root essence of time.

Let’s look at some other examples of science, and material philosophy, which contradict themselves by presumptuously reducing their own irreducibles:

-Energy cannot both be the measure of action potential (the ability to do work) and the instantiation of action (work) and possess energy, itself. That is, energy cannot both be the manifestation of work and a thing which works.

-Gravity cannot both be that which pulls and a thing which possesses the capacity to pull. That is, gravity cannot both be the manifestation of gravitational pull and be a thing which pulls on other things.

-Existence, which is considered the irreducible context for Realtiy in empirical and objectivist philosophies, cannot itself be a thing which exists. That is, the context in which material realtiy exists cannot be objectified as a distinct object which distinctly exists. Existence cannot exist in its own existential context. This is a redundancy which contradicts and nullifies Existence. This of course is the inherent self-defeating fallacy in the metaphysical claim “existence exists”. It is a futile proposition which attempts to correlate the metaphysical to the physical, which is of course a very noble endeavor, but here the endeavor fails. To claim that existence exists is to state the redundancy that existence possesses existence; that it does what it is. Which is a rational error. Existence, being fundamental, somehow yet acts in order to verify itself to itself. In other words, to state that existence exists is to objectify existence as not a metaphysical context for the interaction of the physical, but as a distinct object which is specific from that which exists “in it”, or “in its context”, and thus is not a basis for object existence, but an object which is merely relative to other objects. “Existence exists” undermines existence as being fundamental and primary.

And more to the point of the redundancy of “existence exits”…let’s use “tree” as an example of the rational error committed when material objects are correlated and conflated with their value upon the greater environment (e.g. other objects). It makes no sense to claim that a tree, for example, itself, possesses “treeness”. That the tree does tree. Treeness is entirely irrelevant to the tree, itself; just like existing, or “existence-ness” is entirely irrelevant to existence, itself. “Treeness” is the role the tree plays relative to other objects in order that the observer may conceptualize “tree” as distinct from say “bird” or “dog”. Treeness, or “doing tree”, is a relative action that is a consequence of the tree’s existence relative to its environment. “Treeness” is a concept that results from the tree plus its environment plus the observer. In other words, the tree cannot be a tree to itself. The tree does not act relative to itself. In the same way existence does not act relative to itself. Existence does not exist any more than the tree does treeness. Existence, once objectified as a thing which exists, only exists because it acts relatively to other objects in a greater environment. And this means that existence is not in fact primary, which means it is not irreducible, which means empirical and objectivist metaphysics are incomplete. I propose that the reason objects act relatively to other objects, and why the observer observes and conceptualizes these relative distinctions to create epistemology and ethics, is because they are able. Ability is the singular commonality which binds all material realtiy, then. Ability is the metaphysical primary. And you would not say that “ability is able”, because ability doesn’t need to be able. Ability implies action, and action implies that which acts. And that which acts is what is able. We could even say that “that which exists is able to exist” if we still feel the need to inject existence into metaphysics. This makes existence a rational metaphysical concept because it recognizes that existence is in fact reducible. If we remove ability then we are left with “that which exists, exists”, which is merely another way of stating the tautology “existence exists” (“existence does existence”) which is meaningless. We could say that “existence implies that which exists” if we are going to force the issue of existence as metaphysical primary. But this begs the question “how does that which exists exist?”. And the answer of course is “because it is able to exist’.

END part two

Science Confirms the Existence of Gravitational Waves; Reason Does Not (Part 1)

Physics and Metaphysics, Space, Time and Space, , , , , ,

“Gravitational Waves are ‘ripples’ in space–time…”

“‘Waves’ of changing space–time would propagate in all directions away from the source like waves in water caused by a stone…”

-Caltech LIGO page on gravitational waves

I don’t know everything there is to know, and thankfully I don’t have to. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. In order to successfully exist as a rational creature, pursing Truth and Morality in perfect and purest form, one only has to know this: Existence is rationally consistent; Reality cannot contradict.

Here is an axiom I recently devised as a simple means to apprehend and process the connection between consciousness/cognition and the empirical environment:

“A conceptual contradiction is a physical impossibility.”

Here is an example of what is meant by this: from the position of a given observational (conscious) frame of reference, going left cannot simultaneously be going right in either the abstract or the practical. The abstract idea is a contradiction in terms; any attempt to create and/or actually observe “going left whilst also going right” in the real world shall fail, and will always fail. We can only observe reality from a singular and single frame of reference at any given moment, and that reference cannot bear contradiction…in both senses of the word “bear” here. Now, if we are defining “left” and “right” from the frames of reference of two people looking at the movement from opposite sides, then it can be said that contextually (or subjectively) left is also right because the claim is contextualized and qualified by describing the different positions of the observers. However, the claim is subjective only. At face value, “left is also right” is a contradiction and thus is to be entirely rejected until a qualification is forthcoming. If no qualification exists, thenit is a lie.

Put it general terms, the axiom above inplies simply: A cannot also simultaneously be B. In other words, it is impossible that A may simultaneously be B universally and objectively. The only objective/universal claim is one which applies equally to all observers in all contexts; it is unchanging, and is informed by a single epistemological premise—a single, fundamental defintion of what constitutes truth—based upon a metaphysical premise (what is the nature of reality) which is internally rationally consistent and self-affirming. These are the only parameters available for Objective Truth and from it Objective Reality. If we are all looking at a square on a blackboard, and we all accept the defintion of “square”, then that square cannot also be a circle. Period. Ever. There is no Reality A which somehow by some magic or math is integrated with Reality B, even though they are mutually exclusive realities according to the terms in which they are described, which can mean that we, the observers, are viewing a square which is also a circle…where the square and the circle are equally the same but also categorically different. No. All such claims are object lies. They cannot be. They are anti-Truth. There is no appealing ot mystery, to some Divine force, to law’s of nature, to governing mathematics, to Determinism, to the limitations of human understanding. All of that is a lie. As soon as someone tells you that A is also B and they do not qualify that statement by appealing to context and terms which thus shall render it fundamentally subjective, it is a lie. Period. Full stop. End of story.

The square is not also a circle.

Left is not also right.

The tree is not also a cloud.

And waves cannot exist in a medium which cannot be displaced.

END part 1

The God, Math: The religious dogma of science revealed through the “expanding universe” (Part ONE)

Determinism, Metaphysics, Physics and Metaphysics, scientific determinism, Space, Time and Space, , , , ,

Accepting that the idea of the expansion of the universe is a phenomenon considered relatively well-understood and axiomatic by the scientific community, and perhaps in general, let’s assume Wikipedia to be a credible citation for summarizing expansion:

“The expansion of the universe is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. The universe does not expand “into” anything and does not require space to exist “outside” it. Technically neither space nor objects in space move. Instead it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that changes in scale.”

Focus for a moment on this section: “…it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself…”

How does Wikipedia define “metric”?

”In general relativity, the metric tensor…may be thought of as a generalization of the gravitational potential of Newtonian gravitation.”

“And if we look up the word “tensor” we are told that this is a:

”…mathematical object anologous to but more general than a vector, represented by an array of components that are functions of the coordinates of space.” 

In other words, what science, particularly physics, is telling us is that the only thing which is active, and thus existing (where existence to be efficacious must be active, not passive…for existence which does not “do” is not actually existing) is the mathematical coordinate system. All else then, is passive. All else except the metric tensor does not do; does not move; does not act. Thus, existentially speaking, it is purely illusory. Reality is, in true essence, a set of infinite abstract placeholders which somehow the mathematically-inclined observer may apprehend and define, even though he, himself, is not actually there.

This may seem like quite a large leap of logic. How does one arrive at such a philosophical conclusion from a purely academic monograph on tensors, vectors, geometry, and spacetime?

I’ll explain.

*

I was somewhat surprised to see the Wikipedia article on the expansion of the universe admit that the universe cannot and does not actually expand into anything. I was further surprised to see it admitted that neither space nor objects in space actually move. Accepting the logic of the relativity of movement in a vacuum, the conclusion that there is no movement qua movement (non-relative movement) would seem quite self-evident, yet I’ve never seen it admitted by science. Perhaps I’ve just not been hanging around the right circles and source material.

At any rate, both the claim that the universe does not actually expand (expansion qua expansion) and that space and objects in space do not actually move (movement qua movement) are of course completely true. Perhaps the reason for my surprise at seeing them admitted in a science article is that such claims are more a metaphysical acknowledgment than a physical one. They require a certain meta analysis of the universe qua the universe, rather than the universe as experienced relative to the observer. The former is falls more within the scope of philosophy, the latter, physics. This of course is fine, there is nothing wrong with anyone citing a fact, it’s just that I’ve grown more accustomed to science hijacking philosophy and then promptly mangling it like a toddler on a jelly sandwich instead of actually accepting its distinct truth.

Unfortunately, no sooner does the article make the (albeit implied) important and complex distinction between physics and metaphysics, when this distinction is almost immediately obliterated, with science once again hijacking philosophy and handling it like a monkey handles a clarinet.

What this article implies is that all of reality is boiled down to a mathematical artifice…a McGuffin, you could call it. You see, to bridge the gap between metaphysics and physics, a bridge which is recognized by the declaration that the universe doesn’t actually expand (that is, it doesn’t expand into anything…and by this we can extrapolate the logical assertion thus that the universe doesn’t actually expand at all) and that space nor objects in space actually move, science submits a purely abstract, purely cognitively manifested contrivance of an infinite set of specifically structured numerical and symbolic placeholders. It replaces the whole of efficacious (active, and thus, existent) reality with this set, which of course has the effect, intended or unintended (it doesn’t matter), of punting the entire real field of metaphysics and all of philosophy with it into the endless abyss of mysticism.

And even more egregious is the fact that the irony is completely lost on those atheists who appeal to science as proof of the rationality of dismissing God and the notion of God altogether. Because only fools believe in the fairy tale of the “magic man in the sky”, whilst the rational objectivists and sane empiricists can see that clearly all things are created and controlled instead by an invisible, yet omnipotent, omniscient, and ominipresent mathematical coordinate system summing all things to infinity on infinity.

If that’s not psychological projection then I don’t know what is.

*

Movement, you see, doesn’t exist…that is, the article tells us that the universe does not expand, and that space and objects in space do not move, but instead it is the “metric” which changes in scale”.

Except of course, that there is movement. The concept of movement is not irrational; actual movement does happen…the idea is efficacious; action occurs. It only needs to be qualified that movement is relative. An observer needs to be part of the equation in order to provide a reference for the relationship between two or more objects in a vacuum…because the observer—the Awareness of Self (the “I” of Self)—provides the (only rational) constant for object relationship in a vacuum. Once the observer is present to declare that, for example, “X shall revolve around Y” or “Y shall revolve around X”, then movement can be objectively defined, said to exist, and this efficaciously and actually so, and then mathematically measured. Mathematics are a conclusion, or an effect, not a cause, you see.

But science doesn’t accept the rationality and actuality of the observer. Because it has long ago confused and conflated mathematical truth with philosophical truth, it has relegated the observer to at best an undefinable and ultimately irrelvant epiphenomenon, inconsistent and incompatible with reality, because reality is to be wholly defined scientifically, which is to say mathematically.

Movement, even relative movement, is jettisoned and replaced with a metric which “changes in scale”, which is not movement at all, really , but merely the predetermined “evolution” of an infinite numerical and symbolic mathematical data set. And thus, since nothing actually moves, up to and including the universe, the existence of such is entirely passive, which means that its “existence” doesn’t actually exist. Because if existence doesn’t mean existing, then there is no such thing as existence in the first place. The universe, and all in it, and thus you and me of course, aren’t actually there. There is no observer. And thus there is no constant for movement. All is just an infinite data set which reveals a particular sum at a particular predetermined rate at a particular predetermined time…and all of these particulars are merely illusory, too, for the data set is, again, infinite. Thus, all units of data are merely units of infinity, which renders them ultimately impossible to define. So the grand answer to the cosmic question of life and existence and reality and truth and everything can be summed up by science as merely the  conclusion that “infinity equals infinity”. And, I mean, I don’t even know what you’d call this. It’s some kind of grand atrocity of nihilistic intellectual error, to be sure, but if there is a name for it which illustrates appropriately its level of debasement of all morality and meaning, I don’t know what it is. I couldn’t begin to conjure one up, it’s that bad.

END part ONE

The Redundancy, Errors, and Philosophical Implications of Time Travel Theory (PART 2)

Metaphysics, Metaphysics of Time, Physics and Metaphysics, Space, Time and Space, , , , , , ,

The first problem with time travel theory is one which I have already obliquely addressed: the fact that time does not exist except as an abstract, mathematical construct. In other words, time is not a medium; it’s not a thing we exist in; we cannot travel through time because it isn’t there. Further, the admitted relativity of time according to General Relativity should make this clear to us. If time is relative to the observer, then it is utterly dependent upon the position of the observer AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT. That is, the observer’s CONSTANT frame of reference is “the moment”, or we might say the “perpetual present”—the constancy or perpetuity of his position. This “moment” or “perpetual present” is given temporal meaning by the observer’s CONSTANT frame of reference (and this is the Self-Aware Self…that is, it’s a metaphysical, not physical, reference) RELATIVE to other objects. If the observer and other objects share the same moment—the same “present”—then the relativity of time is purely theoretical. If the moment between the observer and other objects is different due to differences in acceleration, then the relativity of time becomes PRACTICAL..that is, the “time change” can be observed.

Of course the changes have nothing to do with time—time qua time—but I submit are a function of the relative difference in what I call the “direction of existence” (DOE) due to the acceleration of objects relative each other. And to briefly explicate my theory, it works something like this:

Existence is active, and therefore all objects move, or travel, in a root, “baseline”, or constant DOE. This is the source of gravity, I hypothesize, and is why objects with more mass have more gravity…they travel upon a larger or “wider” pathway of existence (POE) relative to less massive objects (this is also why light appears to bend around massive objects…light is moving past the POE, which looks like bending to an observer). When one object, A, accelerates (linearly, for example) relative to another, B, its “existence”, through an alteration along its DOE relative to B, “decrease”, which manifest measurably as “slowing” along the temporal continuum. In other words. because of the change in DOE as a function of acceleration in a new direction relative to B, A’s “time” when compared to B, using B’s time as reference, appears to decrease.

I understand that this is a very arcane and complex physical/philosophical theory, and the provided explication is by no means comprehensive nor is it intended to be. But I included it because I feel obligated to do so. It resolves all of the rational inconsistencies of time travel theory whilst remaining consistent with the scientifically verified empirical data. It shows how the “temporal” descrepancies in objects in different states of acceleration can exist without having to concede the causal, practical, physical existence of time.

*

The next problem with the time travel theory is that time always sums to ONE when measured against itself in comparisons of relative temporal frames of reference. Now, I know that this may seem obvious, as time, being a continuum, is, of itself, in possession of no temporal value (that is, time is, itself, necessarily TIMELESS), and therefore is, of itself, infinite. And of course when you divide time’s infinity into RELATIVE values, these values must always sum (return) to the infinite ONE of time’s own “temporal” value. So relative comparisons of temporal frames of reference between objects don’t actually imply ANY changes to time, itself. And if time itself doesn’t change with changes in temporal frames of reference between objects accelerating at different rates, because these changes are relative, then the temporal differences measured between them don’t actually have ANYTHING TO DO WITH TIME. Traveling through time doesn’t produce any changes in the timeline, itself. So how do we assert that time has changed for each object relative to one another if time hasn’t actually changed at all? As soon as we attempt to measure temporal changes utterly independent of the timeline we have contradicted ourselves. Time is exactly the same for all objects ALL the time, because time cannot change. All temporal “changes” are, by the theory’s OWN ADMISSION, a function NOT of time but of the relative position of the reference. There are only “temporal” changes when we make time RELATIVE TO AN OBJECT said to be “in time”. Thus, time travel has nothing to do with time and everything to do with how we humans ABSTRACTLY define a relative difference between objects. That ABSTRACTION is called “time”; time is not a thing, itself. Like “speed”, or “direction”, or “weight”, etc. etc. it’s a concept humans use to cognitively organize their environment.

*

Person A travels away at light speed from planet X on which remains person B. He returns after five years to discover that person B has aged 20 years.  But let’s not focus on person A. Let’s shift our attention to B. Is it possible that he, like A, can be said to have “time traveled”? Why yes it is. With respect to the relativity of time, the temporal comparison between A and B is likewise relative. Which means that to the same degree A has “time traveled” to the past with respect to B, B has “time traveled” to the FUTURE with respect to A. If time is our plumbline, and time is relative, then this must be the case. It cannot be any other way.

Let’s speak non-relatively for a second. From the point of view of A and B independent of each other, time has passed equally. That is, from their own independent frame of reference nothing has changed…time has passed the same as it always has. They are comfortably ensconced in their “perpetual present”. It is only when the relative comparison is made are there any temporal differences noted. So, this being the case…that is, the fact that time is only RELATIVELY different and not FUNDAMENTALLY different means that if person A has traveled to the future, and the change in time is INEXORABLY attached to the position of B, then person B must have traveled to the past in equal measure. The temporal relationship is proportionally inverse and fundamentally related. As one travels to the future the other travels equally to the past. Person A has gained time relative to person B, and B has lost time relative to A. Thus, despite the fact that A is the one who traveled at the speed of light, BOTH A and B have “time traveled”.

So the only way to “prove” time travel is to make a relative comparison, but as soon as we do that we must accept that both A and B have traveled in equal but inverse degrees, which means that time, on the whole, itself, hasn’t changed at all. Time is absolute. It, of itself, just IS. IT is constant; the change is purely the observer’s perception. Like an hour glass, the sand can shift from one side to the other, but the amount of sand remains constant. Any “change” is purely an abstraction. There is no OBJECTIVE change in how much sand is in the hour glass at any given moment. The sand itself just IS.

Time travel theory doesn’t prove the existence of time, time’s existence being implicit in the assertion that time can be traveled. Time is simply an abstract, mathematical construct spawned from man’s mind, as a function of the mind’s unique and extraordinary powers of conceptualization.

END

 

The Redundancy, Errors, and Philosophical Implications of Time Travel Theory (Part ONE)

Metaphysics of Time, Physics and Metaphysics, Space, Time and Space, , , , , ,

Undoubtedly, we all have heard of Einstein’s time travel thought experiment, which is made according to his principles of General Relativity. Without going into the small details, we understand that this theory is predicated upon the idea that movement through space-time is relative between observers. Now, if you are familiar with my blog you likely have been exposed to the rational inconsistencies which undermine the assertion that space and time (space-time) are existent. That is, that they are things which have existence in “objective, ontic reality” rather than abstract cognitive constructs; that they are THINGS, not simply ideas, as it were. I will briefly summarize these inconsistencies now:

First, space.

Space, being a vacuum, is by very definition the ABSENCE of things; it is not a thing itself—for this would invalidate its very purpose, that is, to serve as the CONTEXT for physical distinction, precisely because it is, itself, NOT physical. As soon as it becomes “objectively existent”, then it is no longer the distinction between things but a thing itself, which therefore leaves the distinction between objects in space, physically and empirically, undefined. In other words, if space is a thing. then what is the space between space and the things which are said to exist in it?

And time.

Time is similar to space in its rational inconsistency (as an object, existent) in that if we attempt to give it some kind of implied or explicit physical boundaries, then its meaning and efficacy collapse into the circular logic. Often we here the phrase “the beginning, or the end, of time”. But time can have no beginning nor end because by definition it IS the beginning and the end. Further, if we give time some kind of implied spatial boundary by appealing to objects as being “in time” or passing “through time”, then we admit that objects in themselves are fundametally timeless. This presents us with an unfortunate contradiction in that what is timeless at root cannot also be utterly obliged to time. And as far as I can deduce, once time becomes part of “objective reality” there can be no possible frame of reference for anyone or anything being OUTSIDE of it, so, as with space, attempting to make a distinction between time and that which exists “in it” becomes a fruitless pursuit.

Also, past, present, and future are mutually exclusive temporal contexts; from the observer’s frame of reference, the present is INFINITELY the present. He exists in the perpetual NOW of his SINGULAR conscious perspective (the “I” of human existence). And this infinite position of the Present is bookended, INFINITELY (absolutely), by the future and the past. People will counter my criticism by declaring time a continuum. And indeed it is. It is a continuum with no beginning and no end and thus it is infinite, and thus any values derive from it (e.g. past, present, future, specified in numerical/mathematical degrees, like minutes, hours, years, etc.) are degrees of infinity, which must necessarily be purely abstract. For there is no such existent THING as a “portion of infinity”. In other words, past, present, and future are components of that which has no beginning nor end, which makes them components of the infinite. Which of course is a meaningless contradiction in terms, practically/ontologically speaking.

*

The root of the problem with assuming that space-time is anything other than a convenient, entirely abstract, mathematical concept and context (called a “coordinate system” in physics, I think) is that it invariably descends into an abyss of infinity, and this makes it ontically irrelevant. In other words, without the objects said to exist in space-time, space-time has no relevance, meaning, or efficacy to physical reality.

Space-time can only exist as a function of the objects in it. Which is to say it then must be purely a function of man’s powers of abstract conceptualization. Man makes purely cognitive, conceptual distinctions between the objects which he observes, including himself (his body)…and one of these distinctions is “space-time”.

Scientists should be extremely wary of straying too far from the mathematics which are the bedrock of their school of thought. Their intellectual milieu is not the philosophical, as much as they seem to insist that it is. But philosophy does not deal in the abstract…at all. It does not deal in “degrees of infinity” as I like to refer to mathematics. It deals with rational consistency…it has corners, boundaries of conceptual compatibility and congruency (or it should, anyway, if it is proper and not madness). In philosophy, an Is Not (e.g. space) cannot also be an Is (e.g. that which physically interacts with the physical). In philosophy, the divine cannot be rationalized away by simply labeling  it “Laws of Nature”. In philosophy, there must be a well-defined distinction between the Observer and the Observed. In philosophy, human consciousness plays a key role in the explication of truth, it is not punted into the cosmic abyss of “epiphenomenon”.

I suck at physics and math…always have, so I don’t pretend to be an expert in the fields, even to the point of calling THEIR scholars fatuous or pseudo-intellectuals, as is often the reverse case. In my experience, the better one is at science/mathematics the worse he is at philosophy, though I do admit that this observation is mostly anecdotal. But as a general rule I don’t need my theoretical physicist to be my philosopher any more than I need my accountant to be my plumber.

*

So, you are familiar with the time travel theory, and it goes something like this: Persons A and B are on planet X. Person A travels away from planet X at the speed of light and then returns after five years from his observational frame of reference, which turns out to be 20 years from the frame of reference of person B. Now, as I said, math is not my strong suit, so I’m adlibbing the numbers here, but you get the idea. Time passes much more slowly for person A relative to person B.

It is important to mention that this theory is supported by a sufficient amount of empirical evidence, particularly those experiments, done in various contexts, which employ atomic clocks as temporal gauges. The “temporal distinction”—which is the alteration in the relative function of atoms in test subjects measured against a temporal reference, with acceleration/speed being the only functional difference—is measurable and repeatable. And so it is clear that there ARE indeed what I would call ACTUAL existential differences based upon relative distinctions in acceleration and speed. This is not hypothetical. It is real. Existence is indeed different, and fundamentally so, between objects that that travel at different speeds.

So what’s the problem then with the time travel theory? Experiments seem to show that it checks out. Well, it is not so much that it’s wrong but that it’s misleading. Now, I’m not suggesting that Einstein himself  intended the theory to mean anything beyond its mathematical parameters and implications (I’m not actually sure), but I do believe that since Einstein the time travel theory has implied some philosophically profound ideas that are now erroneously throught proven true. Like “time is real”, and that we all “exist in it”, and thus we do and can “travel through it”. ALL of these assertion are utterly false, and THIS is what the time travel experiments ACTUALLY prove.

END PART ONE

 

There is No Such Thing as Existential Plurality, There is Only Corollary: A Foundational Pillar of What I Call Objective Relativity

General Philosophy, Objective Relativity, Time and Space, ,

There is no such thing as plurality, only corollary.

This is a maxim which, though it may appear simple, if not somewhat abstruse, is predicated upon hours and hours of thought and discursive logic. I am arguing from several different angles here, all of them equally effective in proving the maxim, I think.

1.

The non-existence of space. That is, I reject the idea that a vacuum of things (the absence of that which IS) is a thing in and of itself. That which is the absence of all that exists cannot, by necessity AND by definition, itself exist.  Of course, the idea of plurality of existence depends upon the notion that there is a physical separation of objects: that A is literally distinct from B, and this because of the actual presence of absence (contradiction alert) between them. This is an utterly irrational assertion and conclusion. If space is a thing, then what, for instance, is between space and objects A and B? Space, being itself an object, would need to be absolutely distinct from A and B, as A and B are absolutely distinct from each other. So now, instead of a plurality of existence between objects A and B, you have a plurality of existence  betweem objects A and B and space–let’s call space, C. Which means that now you must insert object D, which is the space between A and C and, B and C. Which means that now you must introduce object E, which is the space between A and C and D; and B and C and D. And this goes on indefinitely. Once the distinction–the space–between A and B becomes itself its own existent object, you have created an infinite number of “spaces”  between objects. Thus, to define plurality this way makes any existential relationship–any actual interaction between A and B–impossible…because they have become INFINITELY distinct. The fact that they exist infinitely distinct from one another means that their existence cannot accommodate or integrate the existence of any other object. They are completely defined by the infinity of their absolutely distinct existence. Thus, things become merely distinction itself. And distinction, as I’ve already explained, is not a thing itself, but the absence of things.

2.

A and B relate relatively to one another. At no point, except conceptually, does either object form the objective reference of the relationship. Depending upon the needs and frame of reference of the conceptualizing agent (the observer), either A is the reference OR B is the reference. In and of themselves, A and B are existentially and thus relationally absolutely identical. There is NO objective distinction, and thus no definition, possible unless the conceptualizing agent is there to provide the conceptual context whereby A or B can, at any given moment, become the reference for the relative relationship.  What this means is that the idea of a literal distinction between objects A and B is impossible, because that kind of distinction, being wholly relative, is, in and of itself, impossible to define. Only the conceptualizing agent can provide the context whereby any relationship, and thus any true, relevant, and therefore actual distinction, is possible.

3.

Number two being the case, there can be no actual distinction absent the observation of the conceptualizing agent. Observation of a thing, however, in order to produce a concept (by which the observer is known to actually observe someTHING), requires a relative relationship between A and B. But a relative relationship requires relatively existing objects…and note the plural form of that word.  Relativity between objects demands that there can be no SINGULAR object which exists in and of itself. For without a relative relationship, which requires two or more objects, no object can be defined; for EVERY object which is said to be this or that can only be defined according to how it RELATIVELY relates to another object (or other objects). This makes literal, physical plurality impossible. For it is not the DISTINCTION between A and B which ultimately creates their definitions, but the fact that they are existential COROLLARIES. That is, the existence of A inexorably demands the corollary existence of B. There is no A without its corollary B, and vice versa. I am not saying A is B, I am saying they are corollaries.  I am saying that their distinction is one of utterly relative relationship, resulting in the concept, by the observer, which becomes A, and the concept which becomes B.

🍀