Eternity

Originally posted by twhitehead
Eternity is a concept, not an entity, so no, it doesn't 'exist' as such.
Are you really asking 'is the universe eternal'? Or are you asking 'is there something eternal possibly other than the universe'?
What do you mean by 'eternity'? Some people interpret it as meaning 'infinite time' and others take it to mean 'all time, whether finite or infinite'.

Eternity isn't an entity? Maybe. I don't know.

Eternity, as we see it, is a concept. We use the term "eternity" to describe something. Maybe "forever" is another way of saying the same thing.

If the "thing" we call eternity isn't an entity, but merely a concept, how do we give it a description? How do we describe eternity?

Is eternity, time forever in every direction? But if time doesn't really exist, then to what can we reference as a means of giving meaning to the concept of eternity?

Originally posted by vistesd
None but ourselves can free our minds.

—Bob Marley

So then, why does "if the son shall set you free" pop into my mind? 😉

Originally posted by black beetle
Even if matter is not moving, it remains a causal field and its state is under constant change; so time is used in order to let us monitor not its relative movement, but the changes matter goes through
😵

no, time does not describe the changes matter goes through. time describes relative changes between two or more observation points. the observation points can be real or theoretical/simulated; time is not restricted to nor dependent on the existence of matter.

Originally posted by josephw
Is eternity, time forever in every direction? But if time doesn't really exist, then to what can we reference as a means of giving meaning to the concept of eternity?

I am less concerned about whether we consider eternity as an object that can or cannot exist, and more concerned with what you are actually asking. Are you asking: Is time infinite?
If so, my answer is: I do not know.
I must also point out that time may be finite in the past and infinite in the future, or vice versa.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
no, time does not describe the changes matter goes through. time describes relative changes between two or more observation points. the observation points can be real or theoretical/simulated; time is not restricted to nor dependent on the existence of matter.

If time could not be used for the description of the changes matter goes through, it would be impossible to find out the age of an observer. In relation to what exactly a tree is getting older?

As regards the dependence of the time on the existence of the matter, you just wrote down that “time describes relative changes between two or more observation points.”, so my question is this: What exactly do we monitor but changes of a specific causal field that occur in relation to the observation points of ours? Are these observation points separated from space and matter? A sundial cannot work without matter (sun), whilst the most accurate timekeeping device herenow, the atomic clocks, are accurate to seconds in many millions of years simply because they use the spin property of atoms (matter) as their basis
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
If time could not be used for the description of the changes matter goes through, it would be impossible to find out the age of an observer. In relation to what exactly a tree is getting older?

As regards the dependence of the time on the existence of the matter, you just wrote down that “time describes relative changes between two or more observatio ...[text shortened]... millions of years simply because they use the spin property of atoms (matter) as their basis
😵

But is it really proper to call, say, atoms “matter” anymore—as opposed to, say, specific bundlings of energy vibrations (or something like that). Isn’t the energy-matter distinction really gone? Which is why the word “physicalism” (which includes energy and dimension) used more often than “materialism”?

Does dimensionality (with "observation points" ) really necessitate materialism?

I also sometimes think that a process metaphysics (generally, not necessarily “Whiteheadian” ) might have more to offer than substance metaphysics?

[Note the question marks! 🙂 ]

Originally posted by black beetle
If time could not be used for the description of the changes matter goes through, it would be impossible to find out the age of an observer. In relation to what exactly a tree is getting older?

As regards the dependence of the time on the existence of the matter, you just wrote down that “time describes relative changes between two or more observatio ...[text shortened]... millions of years simply because they use the spin property of atoms (matter) as their basis
😵

is the tree getting older?

what's really happening to the tree is the relation of the atoms with which it is composed are changing relative to each other.

that we call this process "aging" is purely coincidental.

also, you seem to be confusing units of measuring relative time with time itself. those time keeping devices are only accurate from from the observation point of where they are located and in relation to what is being observed from that location.

Originally posted by vistesd
But is it really proper to call, say, atoms “matter” anymore—as opposed to, say, specific bundlings of energy vibrations (or something like that). Isn’t the energy-matter distinction really gone? Which is why the word “physicalism” (which includes energy and dimension) used more often than “materialism”?

Does dimensionality (with "observation points" ) ...[text shortened]... ” ) might have more to offer than substance metaphysics?

[Note the question marks! 🙂 ]

I noticed them, my friend!

Isn’t an atom a basic unit of matter that consists of a dense central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons? (Furthermore, energy and matter are the sides of the same coin, otherwise E = m x c^2 would not hold).

On the other hand, the observer universe is the sum of all the causal fields and the observers that we perceive herenow, thus it is the sum of them all within all the time parameters we are capable to conceive. If these time parameters are not matter dependent, the concept of time would have no object; for, the “motion” of what exact epistemic object do we monitor when we use the abstract concept of time within a spacetime continuum?

Finally, since whatever we perceive is a part of the observer universe (a part of the Worlds 1, 2 and 3) and takes place within a specific spacetime, I think that every observer and every epistemic object is never stable but undergoes constantly through changes, as they are phenomena-in-flux (if this was false, the observers and the causal fields that are parts of the observer universe would be immutable). So, how can ever time be applied in separation with matter?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I noticed them, my friend!

Isn’t an atom a basic unit of matter that consists of a dense central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons? (Furthermore, energy and matter are the sides of the same coin, otherwise E = m x c^2 would not hold).

On the other hand, the observer universe is the sum of all the causal fields and the o ...[text shortened]... er universe would be immutable). So, how can ever time be applied in separation with matter?
😵

I recall one physicist one here (no longer around, I think, and I can’t remember his name) commenting that it’s all reducible to energy. I would say that what we call “matter” is just—and take this somewhat metaphorically, because I am not a physicist—a particular range of frequency of vibrating energy (or energy “strings” bundled that produce a “frequency” ) that appears as solid. In other words, to borrow from process philosophy, what we call “matter” is actually a process, a going-on, not a “thing”.

—Analogy: wavelengths that appear as different colors in the visible spectrum.

But— If energy and matter are “two sides of the same coin”, then what is that “coin”? That is, if energy and matter are differing (though exchangeable under the conditions formulated as E = MC^2) manifestations of a singular X—what is that X?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
is the tree getting older?

what's really happening to the tree is the relation of the atoms with which it is composed are changing relative to each other.

that we call this process "aging" is purely coincidental.

also, you seem to be confusing units of measuring relative time with time itself. those time keeping devices are only accurate from fr ...[text shortened]... point of where they are located and in relation to what is being observed from that location.

Edit: “is the tree getting older?”

Yes, because it is a phenomenon-in-flux and therefore at a given time it will “die”. Its matter will cease to exist in the way that its formation allows for the being of the tree. What’s what ‘s really happening to the tree is not that the relation of the atoms with which it is composed are changing relative to each other, but that its matter (atoms) will dissolve into the quantum uncertainty (its matter will become energy, which under specific circumstances it will trigger form into being again, a form neither identical, not different, nor both nor neither than its previous form we perceived as a tree).


The process of aging is not purely coincidental; the orthogonal epistemic objects are changing within spacetime.


Edit: “also, you seem to be confusing units of measuring relative time with time itself. those time keeping devices are only accurate from the observation point of where they are located and in relation to what is being observed from that location.”

No. Whatever is being observed from any location, has the form of either enegy or matter. Even gravity cannot exist in separation with matter. Check any two-dimensional analogy of spacetime distortion and you will see that matter changes even the geometry of spacetime.
Finally, would you agree that before the big bang all we have is a singularity where matter, light, heat, particles, dark matter and all other stuff cannot be perceived? In that absence of matter and of all other stuff we observe to see change (motion of mass included) and thus measure time, is there time?
😵

Originally posted by vistesd
I recall one physicist one here (no longer around, I think, and I can’t remember his name) commenting that it’s all reducible to energy. I would say that what we call “matter” is just—and take this somewhat metaphorically, because I am not a physicist—a particular range of frequency of vibrating energy (or energy “strings” bundled that produce a “frequency” ...[text shortened]... able under the conditions formulated as E = MC^2) manifestations of a singular X—what is that X?

The coin is the observer universe; the two sides are the forms of its manifestation (all the forms of the observers that are parts of the observer universe)
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
The coin is the observer universe; the two sides are the forms of its manifestation (all the forms of the observers that are parts of the observer universe)
😵

In what sense (if any sense), then, could matter/energy, space/time, etc. be called “maya”—understanding that as illusion only in the sense of the manifestation being taken as something separable from the whole (you know my non-dualistic view here&hellip😉? Analogously, the observer universe as a whole as brahman (Tao)?

Originally posted by josephw
So then, why does "if the son shall set you free" pop into my mind? 😉

Repetition?

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “is the tree getting older?”

Yes, because it is a phenomenon-in-flux and therefore at a given time it will “die”. Its matter will cease to exist in the way that its formation allows for the being of the tree. What’s what ‘s really happening to the tree is not that the relation of the atoms with which it is composed are changing relative to each o ...[text shortened]... ither identical, not different, nor both nor neither than its previous form we perceived as a tree).

nothing really "dies," it just changes form. time is not concerned with these change, time is only relevant with relative movement. it doesn't matter if the movement being measured is composed of matter, energy or completely theoretical.

these changes are purely coincidental from the viewpoint of human perception.

The process of aging is not purely coincidental; the orthogonal epistemic objects are changing within spacetime.

it is coincidental because aging doesn't exist. even the existence of orthogonal epistemic objects are purely coincidental. time only describes the relative positions of the objects being observed.

Edit: “also, you seem to be confusing units of measuring relative time with time itself. those time keeping devices are only accurate from the observation point of where they are located and in relation to what is being observed from that location.”

No. Whatever is being observed from any location, has the form of either enegy or matter.

it doesn't matter what form is taken by whatever is being observed.

Even gravity cannot exist in separation with matter. Check any two-dimensional analogy of spacetime distortion and you will see that matter changes even the geometry of spacetime.

you describe a fiction called "spacetime." the two are not connected. there is "space" and an abstract "time" used to describe the positions of the elements that form the "space."
how the elements in "space" clump together to form shapes is coincidental.

Finally, would you agree that before the big bang all we have is a singularity where matter, light, heat, particles, dark matter and all other stuff cannot be perceived? In that absence of matter and of all other stuff we observe to see change (motion of mass included) and thus measure time, is there time?
😵

it is theoretically possible that if all of "space" is compressed into a singularity, and there is absolutely no motion of any sort, then there would be no time, but since we had a big bang it must mean that there was time.

so either there was some motion/vibration in the singularity and thus relative time existed within the singularity and the arrangement of the elements eventually reached the critical position that caused the big bang or...

there was no time within the singularity, therefore the big bang must have been triggered by some force external to the singularity and that would be an indication that there was time relative between the singularity and one or more external unknowns (perhaps other singularities).

Originally posted by vistesd
In what sense (if any sense), then, could matter/energy, space/time, etc. be called “maya”—understanding that as illusion only in the sense of the manifestation being taken as something separable from the whole (you know my non-dualistic view here&hellip😉? Analogously, the observer universe as a whole as brahman (Tao)?

Maya, the Floating World, is real and arises when we do not perceive that the Quantum Karmic (Quantum Cause-Effect) Reality is neither reduced in parts nor differentiated in different entities. Maya is perceived (falsely; as if it were inherently existent) because it is the result of our consciousness whenever we collapse the wavefunction. The physical objects are not in space, because these objects are spatially extended as causal fields (your beloved philosopher's 2.0121 – 2.021). So, in my opinion each causal field becomes an irreducible element of physical description in the same sense that the concept of matter/ particles in the Newtonian theory of reality is validated; and the physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of the co-ordinates of spacetime. Hence, if the theory of general relativity is accurate, both the concept of motion and the Newtonian representation of physical reality by a continuous field are not fundamental. For matter (particle) appears solely as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high.
It follows that Time and Space and Gravitation have no separate existence from matter🙂

As regards the analogy “the observer universe as a whole as brahman”, to me it is still dualistic at its core; methinks Patanjali’s savikalpa, asamprajñata and sanjeevan are modifications of the mind that give us the excuse to consider that the observer universe is Brahman. But I have not the slightest evidence that this belief is justified; words and projections of the mind, all empty –and emptiness is not inherently existent. All I see is projections of my own mind –and I see no Brahman but my dark lake. By the time my mind dives in, no wave on the surface of the lake anymore, so it is not my knowledge that mind and atman are different. When in, singularity.
What is Your knowledge?

Namaste
😵