cladking

That a cirlce is related to its diameter is a concept that is independent of time. However, concepts like velocity have no meaning outside of time. Indeed, if space is really an emergent property of time than even the relationship of a circle to it diameter is changed. You would say that it's pi times longer around a circle than across it. These measurements would be a function of time rather than distance. From current perspective pi is 3.14 and this remains "true" even though it is not the most realistic way to depict it. Math is certainly adaptable enough to arrive at the same answer in many different ways.

How about V = d/ t? Of course the statement is "timeless" but how can it be applied to anything timelessly?

As an abstraction this is true and quite timeless. One car plus one train equals two things. It would even be true that a car in the here and now plus a train in the 1860's equal two things. The problem comes if we try to apply such truths to the real world. c / D = Pi. This is true and the entire statement is true independently of how it is read, the order it is comprehended, or the numbers applied to test it. If we say one bridge plus one bridge can carry us to our destination we are obviously invoking time. The same applies if you are computing the number of bolts needed to build a bridge; twenty girders and ten bolts per girder equals 200 bolts. 20 / (1/ 10) = 200 (or 10 x 20 = 200). As abstractions equations are necessarily correct and timeless; the entire statement stands at once. The problem I see is that our math assumes that space is three dimensional with time as a fourth dimension. If this isn't reflective of reality I believe that equations would have to be rewritten to deal with space as a property of time. How can you define "circumference" or "diameter" if there's no such thing as space as we know it? This equation would have to be rewritten to reflect the reality even though the answer is going to be just about the same thing. This would apply to even purely abstract equations that involve space or time would it not?

I believe you are wrong. If it were merely programnmed to do things which are beneficial to itself then we couldn't accurately predict its actions. It would necessarily have its own perspective.

I strongly disagree on many levels. But I do think there's a simple way to detect sentience. When it's both impossible to predict what the computer will do yet most things it does are beneficial to its own health and welfare we can assume consciousness exists. Of course it will also try to tell us in some language but this would be open to misinterpretation or other factors.

If people can't see that an ape or an earthworm is conscious then how will we tell a machine is conscious? We'll just assume it's following its programming no matter what it says. The turing test means very little in establishing that something is "conscious" and primarily is merely telling us the machine can respond to verbal stimuli verbally. Without knowing what constitutes consciousness it's pretty hard to ascribe to anything other than people who we understand and who understand us. I suppose we're mostly just giving them the benefit of the doubt that they aren't merely holograms or placeholders or some sort of actor. All the world's a stage ya' know. Why can't we program an actor to seem as sentient as the next guy?

Space as an emergent property of time seems to make a lot of sense. We aren't separated from the nearest star by three light years but simply by three years. I've been playing around with the concept of gravity as a property of matter for some time now. Then all we really need is a link between matter and time. A tiny amount of matter would equal a great amount of time. I don't believe modern science can address this directly because it lies far outside our metaphysics. Space exists axiomatically in three dimensions. Our formulae are based on this perspective. I might be able to find a link to an Australian metaphysician who has proposed something very similar to your work. You'll probably find this pretty interesting. https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/the-philosophy-of-the-bloody-obvious-by-johann-de-jong/

Consciousness is an emergent property of the digital brain but modern humans experience it through a rectifying circuit known as language. For the main part you're the output current but all brain/ body activity is not experienced solely as output and most such activity is not experienced at all. At times the language centers sleep. For most practical purposes you are the output but you still can experience the digital brain though most gets "translated"/ modified before you are aware of it.

Neurons are on or off. How can consciousness be analog if the brain is digital? The irony here is I probably have the answer and want to say but it will be considered off topic. Suffice to say that consciouness is widespread in nature and even God's lowliest creatures do it. If it were complicated then I couldn't do it. Consciousness is an emergent property of the sum total of the animal brain. Mebbe I could skirt around going off topic by merely observing that individuals operate, think, and communicate using language as an operating system. Understand language and you'll understand why consciousness appears to be analog.

I also don't believe in pink unicorns. I've never seen one. I am more suggesting that the world might look different from a perspective that unicorns and infinity don't exist at all. I doubt there's an earth in existence that has unicorns or infinity. Your results may vary.

Perhaps only the current moment exists. It is dependent on previous moments and may be followed by more moments but why presume a moment can be divided or that a unit of time exists that can be divided? If you can't point to anything in the real world that's infinite then why be so sure that it exists? It appears that the mathematical concept of infinity is being used as the basis of the big bang and the many worlds theories. It is affecting our understandings and is hiding the real complexity of reality.

Why don't you rigorously show something in the real world that is infinite? Then I'll accuse you of semantics. We always want to count things even though all things are unique. All things are one. So we want to count seconds and years as though time can be counted. Perhaps time is merely continuous.

I guess you missed this statement; "But while all of space exists all at once, maybe only the current moment exists." Mebbe I can say it another way you'll remember; you can travel in any direction in space but in time only "now" actually exists. Cause and effect simply means that previous "nows" once existed. Now, rather than trying to see the perspective, you'll say I'm engaging in semantics. Sometimes the future can be predicted.

What I said was, "I can accept the possibility that time is eternal without being infinite" in response to someone else's point. You seem to be reading what you expect me to say.

"Rehtorical trick/ semantics"? This is just another of your continuing semantical arguments. I'm making declaratory statements about the nature of reality. These statements in aggregate do not contradict known science and comprise a different way to see things. It is a perspective that doesn't require or employ scientific models. One does science to learn about nature. Until the observation is made or the experiment is run nobody knows how it might be useful. I'm sure I don't know. But while all of space exists all at once, maybe only the current moment exists.

You call it semantics but then fail to note that nothing I'm suggesting contradicts theory. I'm merely talking about a different perspective. Every perspective has advantages and disadvantages relative others. If you want to cross a busy highway you can't assume there is no faster moving vehicle hidden by an approaching tractor-trailer or you may not make it all the way across. I can accept the possibility that time is eternal without being infinite.

You look at a bridge and you see tensile strenghts, vectors, and the modulus of elasticity. A cop sees the extent of his territory and a politician his new yacht. A civil engineer sees traffic patterns and a painter sees a job. A piest sees ways to bring people together and a taxpayer sees either the time it saves or just another boondoggle. Obviously everyone has a unique perspective and even identical twins don't occupy the same space.

This is just the way the modern mind works. We each know everything because we each see what we believe. Our beliefs are always reinforced and we eventually become those beliefs. There is no escape. Scientists see the world in terms of models derived from experiment. They don't see things outside of these models most of the time. They simply don't see the world like an accountant, lawyer, or priest sees the world. They don't even see the same thing an engineer sees. Why do you continually dismiss this simple observation? The discussion can't move beyond this until you consider it. It's impossible to see another perspective until you recognize you already have a perspective.

If you're seriously suggesting yesterday didn't happen onm the moon then one of us is in the wrong discussion. Perhaps the number of processes and "laws" that apply to reality are infinite or unknowable. We have no reason at all to presume that experimental science can come to undersatand all these phenomena. Here we are stuck on the unified field theory for nearly a century. Perhaps our tool (experimental science) isn't up to the task of understanding how these forces are related. I don't know. Yes, exactly. Very good. It is already known to be smaller than any human can imagine. These numbers in mere moments become stupendously large even when considering the tiniest little detail. Nature is constantly performing these impossibly complex computations. Every single one is applied exactly correctly. Of course everyone is doing this all the time. This is why we each see something different and we each see what we expect. This is the reality of human existence that we can't see because of the way we think. It is the reality that obscures the reality as seen from other perspectives. We preferentially see what we know. When everything you see mirrrors what you know you overestimate your knowledge. If you know God will smite evil doers on earth before he punishes them eternally then you know exactly why murderers et al come to an untimely and ghastly end. What you believe determines what you see. A botanist sees a tree and an anthropologist sees the soil on which it grows. A zoologists sees the monkeys and insects dependent on the tree but none seem to see the forest. The murderer sees a shady spot to dig a grave. This is the reality. It requires effort to see another perspective. Perspective is everything and if you see only one perspective yopu might be missing all the important information.

Obvious, eh? Perhaps "apparent" is a better word. It is believed this current moment occurs everywhere simultaneously. I am suggesting we each have a slightly different clock which is between us. Jupiter is hours away. Yes, in principle but this would require we learn every single "law" of nature which might be impossible. The odds of any given molecule occupying a specific spot in a million years are simply "infinitely" small. Yet clouds are sailing over right this minute and most of those molecules were on earth even a million years ago. How can anyone take a rudimentary knowledge of water molecules and some of the natural forces and propose that our knowledge is deep and broad and act as though they know everything? How is it possible that everyone sees the world in terms of what he knows when he knows nothing? When you describe reality you'll describe it in terms oif the models you know whether those models were derived from experiment or scripture. When you calculate something or decide on what is right you'll use these models. You'll see things in terms of them and become your models/ beliefs over a lifetime. People don't understand the nature of these models either. For now suffice to say they are language dependent virtually to the same degree they depend on experiment or scripture. The only reason modern language works at allis that we try to understand one another. When we assign a meaning to a spoken word we are trying to assign a meaning such that it makes sense in context. If you refuse to try to see the sense in what I'm saying it's impossible for me to convey this perspective. Can you even accept such a simple concept that perspective determines what you see? hear? understand? Perspective! No side of the cone is flat. One side is a dome.

Well, I could say that except that it's for reasons of logic and consistency with two sciences that I believe that my perspective might be more consistent with reality. I don't "insist" there's no such thing as infinity so much as I simply point out that there is no apparent referent for the concept in the real world. I don't know. Perhaps things are merely separated by time. Yes, presuming it's infinite and space exists. It can never be quantified until we understand every single force and process in all of reality. We may have done little more than scratch the surface to date. But no one seems to know what I'm talking about when I speak about the difficulty of predicting the shape of the second cloud that sails over a given point in on a sunny morning in 1,000,000 years. I believe there is an alternative and it merely involves taking a different perspective.

Of course I have no evidence the universe is not infinite any more than I have evidence it is. I don'tknow. If I believed in space then I might believe the universe is infinite from that perspective. But I don't believe in "space". The existence of space is not axiomatic in my understanding. Cause and effect are axiomatic as are time and reality. But no matter your axioms and definitions there is nothing we can point to and say that is a manifestation of "infinity". We can show how such things break down in the real world. If you try to divide something into ever smaller parts you'll eventually reach a point where your tools aren't up to the job. But like most of these discussions this one isn't about axioms and scientific knowledge. I'm simply not talking about things that can be reduced to explanation by models. I am talking about perspective and the simple fact that people are overlooking reality in their zeal to achieve scientific understanding. At the very least they are looking at reality from a perspective that can't see some things that should be obvious. We aren't even noticing the incredible complexity of nature and instead see our scientific knowledge.

I don't know for a fact that some kids can hear high speed molecules but this is the opinion of experts in the past and is completely logical. I do know it has never been disproven. What supporting evidence do you have that all mathematical constructs exist in the real world? Without this assumption you have no evidence and no logic. I have the observable reality and logic. I know this doesn't prove I'm right but it suggests there's more than one perspective to view what we know and doesn't exclude the possibility I'm right. If there are an infinity of worlds then there should be an infinity of pyramids on earths. I suppose that means there should even be an earth with a hole where Lincoln should be. But it must be true. There is not only the simple fact that mathematics says it's true but anyone observing a chaotic system can intuit it. It is a description of how the real world actually works. We can't see the harmonic systems are composes of chaotic element that destabilize them in the long term but there's simply no doubt that nothing can last forever.

No. It's the way chaos theory was described back when it was discovered around 1957. I suppose you consider this "woo" however. Everything in existence causes earthquakes. All things are dependent on things that came before. I can imagine many ways a hurricane can cause an earthquake. ...It might take a while though. This should be common knowledge among anyone who considers himself a scientist but, then, it may not be and you get a pass on it due to your age. Just look up "brownian movement" and don't expect me to do all your work. Did I mention infinity doesn't even exist. It is so poorly conceptualized by people that they have the absurd notion that there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. Even if infinity did exist this is simple and utter nonsense. Reality conforms neither to our wishes nor our knowledge. It doesn't conform to math but if a butterfly flaps it wings in China there will be storm somewhere caused by it. This is reality. Even though concepts of infinity tend to the absurd the apparent complexity of reality makes most of these concepts puny in comparison. Numbers like 10 ^ 100,000 are like tiny fractions in this world. In this world, the real world, predicting which tree will be hit by lightning caused by the butterfly is mere child's play in comparision to the really tough predictions. Actually modern science can be seen as the effort of man to compute this complexity. Each time we learn a new natural phenomenon we can better estimate just how complex something is. Eventually we can put a number on it though i might require a new logarithmic scientific notation. These numbers are going to get impossibly large if we ever know much about nature.

A butterfly flaps its wings in China causing a hurricane eight days later. The hurricane causes an earthquake after 100 years. The earthquake results in a perturbation of earth's orbit after a million years. The perturbation causes the destruction of the earth/ moon after 10 million years which leads to a collision of galaxies eventually and then a wholly different universe to be created in the next big bang. But why did the butterfly flaps its wings at all? It might be some errant nerve signal caused by the most insignificant collision of particles days earlier. Some youngsters can hear high speed molecules in their ears. Such a molecule (brownian movement) might start a scientist on life long journey. It could even start a religious scholar on such a journey. The world is an impossibly complex place and infinity has nothing to do with it.