universe

[viljo]

When it comes to universes, perhaps one is enough after all.
Many theories in physics and cosmology require the existence of alternate, or parallel, universes.  But Dr. Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, explains the flaws of theories that suggest our universe is just one of many, and which also perpetuate the notion that time does not exist.  Smolin, author of the bestselling science book 'The Trouble with Physics' and a founding member of the Perimeter Institute, explains his views in the June issue of Physics World.
Smolin explains how theories describing a myriad of possible universes, or a "multiverse", with many dimensions and particles and forces have become more popular in the last few years. However, through his work with the Brazilian philosopher Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Smolin believes that multiverse theories, which imply that time is not a fundamental concept, are “profoundly mistaken

 

[IJesusChrist]

But time, really doesn't exist

 

[maxfreakout]

yes totally, time is an illusion, there is only one eternal moment which is NOW

 

[ophiuchus]

smolin's clearly never taken entheogens

 

[Psyolopher]

Time is an idea.

 

[lol*fan]

Time measures change.

 

[maxfreakout]

Time measures change.

right but nothing ever changes

 

[Cheveyo]

Time measures change.

right but nothing ever changes

I would have to disagree with you there..Time is constantly changing

 

[maxfreakout]

Time measures change.

right but nothing ever changes

I would have to disagree with you there..Time is constantly changing

how does time change?

 

[TheBarn]

isn't time a measurement? like speed.

time isn't constant but it exists, it depends on how we measure it.

 

[marz]

I've done a lot of research into this subject, and can agree with most of your initial post, with a few exceptions.

First of all, Thank you Smolin, wherever you are, fo being one of the friggin few scientists that realize Science's inability to follow its own methodological guidelines. Namely, the initial state can NEVER be restored. Thus, every experiment - is truly a different experiment. All science is, then, would seem to be a law of averages and probabilities.

Next, I agree that a good Cosmological Vision of the Universe does not get into the complexities of "multiple universes," especially when we are already working on the infinitude of this one. However, it does make sense to re-appraise the necessary conditions created by Einsteinian physics. A hyper-spherical universal structure that explains singularities and their necessary effects on the universe, is quite necessary. http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html. Additionally, superstrings don't necessarily created multiverses in the sense that they are 'separate' from this Universe. Instead, they are more like anti-verses, on the anti-pode of our Universe. Check out Bell's Theorum as viewed by Quantum mechanics, and one realizes that a particle existing non-locally suggests that the same matter is being used on 'opposite ends' of the universe. I'd guess an end with opposing polarity, and potentially different laws of physics.

Also, I would submit that time exists as an illusion of movement dilation - caused by a particular consciousness having a specific 'frameset.' Think about it, our visual cortex can only process at certain speeds, light is a finite speed (probably not fixed), and relativity is a reality to humans because of our very nature.

I'll leave you with the following:

* "Time is the moving image of eternity" - Plato
* Isn't it interesting that the Mayans, the masters of calendar time and cycles, chose the name Maya, which means "illusion?"
* Time seems to be undergoing an inflationary sequence paralleling very closely the inflationary expansion during the big bang...Except in relation to time.
* Check out my webpage if you're interested in this type of stuff.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

I don't have the educational background to talk about quantum mechanics, but I've never believed in the multiverse theory (it just doesn't make sense to me), nor do I think time is an illusion. So I guess I kind of agree with that Smolin dude.

Marz, I'm not sure if there's an etymological link between the Sanskrit ???? or m

 

[restin]

Nothing is more constant than change.

 

[marz]

Thanks for the etymological consideration. First though, I'm not saying time does not exist, as we clearly experience it. What I am saying though, is that Cosmologically, science has no place in creating a philosophy of the universe. It works upon numerous presuppositions that preclude it from giving a comprehensive world-view. Namely, it works within a probability time-matrix that is not the actual nature of the universe.
When most scientists are trying to set the human agenda for our worldview, they are doing much damage. Taking a look at the condition of the world today should be proof enough of that. There IS a state of being that exists beyond time.
Humans today have been washed clean of this understanding, and science, in its typical hubris, likes to claim that these states of conscious awareness are just imaginary. For science, anything that they don't understand, they dismiss as non-observational, and therefore invalid. That's so ridiculous. Of course they can't test it. That right there should ring a bell as to why science is not a tool for explaining everything. Interestingly, notice how science RELIES on observational data, and yet not once considers human sensory perception ability to be factored into the equation. You can't have it both ways, and yet, science wants to claim it knows the truth outside of human perception, and yet, still needs observation to prove itself. Quite odd indeed.

As for your etymological notion, I found this:
* From Sanskrit - The illusionary world of the senses. includes the notion of an absolute being. "Maya;" means "illusion" or "enchantment" in Sanskrit and Pli (from ma; "not" and ya; "this")

* Hindu teaching - The golden scales/dream. . Maya is the phenomenal world of separate objects and people, which creates for some the illusion that it is the only reality.

* Buddhism - Maya is the mother of Buddha.
* Japanese - Truth and understanding
* Russian - Form of Mary
* Roman - Maia, derived from May
* Greek - Mother
* Indian - Illusion
* Latin and Spanish - The great one
* Jewish and Hebrew - Mayim - Water
* English - May - Shortened form of Amalia
*Mythology - Maia - Oldest and most beautiful of the 7 daughters of Atlas - Mother of Hermes
*Astronomy - One of the 7 sisters, the Pleides

According to Caduceus’ reference, as I found on wiki: “He was the designer and king of the three flying cities, known as the Tripura. They were great cities of prosperity, power and dominance over the world, but due to their impious nature, Maya's cities were torched out of the sky by Lord Shiva. However, Maya escapes the destruction, as he is a devotee of Lord Shiva.

 

[marz]

BTW, I am familiar with singularities. I have been privy to the core Universal Structure through third eye activation. I happened to stumble upon Hassim no more than 2 weeks ago. I've never heard of the other person. I can say though, that Hassim is fairly accurate in his estimations. Notice that he realized that his 'discoveries' have been known for centuries, by the indigenous cultures of our world...Did you have a question about that?

 

[infinitetransistor]

time is a concept ofcorse it doesnt exist

if time was a plain unfolding pattern then why is it effected by gravity?

time changes with perspective isnt that relativity?

I think time and space cannot be measured they are simply infinity. a continuously growing thing

like a second is only a short amout of time cus thats how fast your brain works.

all is equal

 

[marz]

Infintetransistor, I think what you're pointing out is that time is dimensional. It doesn't exist as a simple linear line as graphed in typical plotted charts.

So what is a concept? Obviously an idea, but many concepts become physical form; eg: a car. It started as an idea, and then we built it.

Now, it becomes interesting as to what concepts humans created into form, and what forms existed before man, and were thus attributed to a specific concept. It makes one wonder. It would seem that man created the concept of time to deal with 'change.' This is clearly different from a car, because we make a car from our concept, whereas we try to understand time by making a concept.

When one builds a form from a concept, one doesn't have to worry much about if their concept is correct. If the car works, then it probably is! But, in the case of time, and things of this nature, it would seem very prudent and wise to carefully examine our concept to see if it is correct, because if we don't have the concept right, or well-defined, then we could get into trouble after making systems of thought that use 'bad ideas' or half-complete concepts.

And a you have pointed out, we are very poor in linguistic ability in defining the nature of time? What is it? Why can't we see it? Is there a formula for it? What does it mean?

I'd posit that the paradoxes of beginning and end (in terms of the universe) are indications that time is not linear, but rather circular, or more probably fractal and spirallic.

Perhaps, if you want to get deep, you might even begin to consider the possibility that time is just the change of perception of an unchanging collective unity. The peculiarity of Einstein's relativity on perspective and time in relation to gravity at the speeds of light, are indications that time may be a function of conscious perceptive.

One thing we can be sure of is that our concepts dictate our reality. We conceived of a car, and now look. Well, we should play close attention to our other conceptions, lest we give birth to a universe that sucks or makes no sense.

 

[infinitetransistor]

Marz
I think i get what you mean, but what i meant by concept i guess its its just an idea that you cant point to, it has no physical location and cannot. Im sure if you thought enough you could come up with a concept similar to time that might make sence to you givin what you know but that doesnt make it a physical reality.

or does it? i guess its all in perspective, but from the perspective of the entirety of space, the one everexpanding thing there is, id say there is no time.

 

[marz]

We can't see a lot of things we believe in. Black holes, quarks, super-strings. But yes, time takes the prize for being extremely and conspicuously absent. In fact, we don't even expect to see it as a substance of any kind. It would seem instead to be a derivative product or aspect caused by the phenomenon of change or movement.

It is possible that time is actually a by-product of consciousness confined to a finite perspective; one that is within a greater whole. There are these optical illusions where it appears the image is moving. Of course it isn't, and it will only rotate when your eyes move, or change perspective. So this is a demonstration of how movement is just an illusion, one depending on perspective. I'd say, without movement, there is no change. But clearly, this is an example of something appearing to change - when it in fact does not.

Could the Universe be the same? Similar? And to what extent.

I think it might be wise to look for that which does not change. That which doesn't change would seem to be the real. Everything else is just temporary, a dream, an illusion (not the same as false). That which does not change has to be of true essence. The only thing I can think of, i that concept 'I' that we use to identify ourselves. True we never seem to be quite the same person, and yet, we are. Some claim the identity is of the body, and he others say it's the soul.

If it's of the body, then you too, or I, are just another illusion. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Besides being a depressing idea, it does not intuitively make sense. I don't think I'm reaching out to try and make myself feel better when I claim there is something more than this. I think it's a further stretch to say that this is all there is. It would seem like we either live in a Universe with no cause or purpose, or we are in something much greater than we can currently understand - i design to becoming a being of truth.

If you can't prove either way, then you must just have to choose. It would seem silly, masochistic, and self-defeating to prefer to believe that we live in a dead universe with no purpose rather than an alive universe that has only started to reveal its mystery to us. And if it all comes down to a choice we make, then what we believe is the most power we ever get.

Therefore, we must choose what we believe wisely. It's probably best just to have ideas and not get too caught up on beliefs. After all, mankind has a little issue with belief-systems, from religion to science, commonly taking them to the extreme, whether by Crusades or wars on the environment.

Our concept of car, led to us building a car. A concept of a dead universe can lead to no other than a lack of ethics and a drive to survive and leave the losers in the dust. Clearly, it doesn't work too well. On te other hand, religions have caused quite a bit of hell themselves. So then what?

Ever notice how the wise man never argues for what he believes? Maybe that's because he knows that once you give a name to your belief, you automatically destroy the possibility of that which it negates. And if the universe seems to be anything, it seems to be filled with endless possibility. Indeed, most wise men just point to the 'thing' of consideration, and let it speak for itself.

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Most indeed.

aranoid: