The Nature of Time

Time = fractal wave :sunny:

Time is seemingly a fundamental element of the holographic projection, without it the various states of energy could not exist.

When you think about it - everything in this existence is energy... matter is merely condensed states of energy. Light (electromagnetic radiation) is merely communication/transmission of energy.

We then sub-divide that into other states such as solid, liquid and gas... when in reality - 99% of space is un-used... all "matter" is more like a gas, just with varying strengths of the bonds between the relevant molecules.

Our division of the universe separates us from the bigger picture.

Time is part of the fundamental condensation of energy into matter - this is why light is timeless, it has not been condensed yet.

I suggest the absorption of a photon into matter would actually look like a fractal spiral as it condensed to be part of the matter.

I think I may have just figured out a new theory for how time works and it's relationship to matter :sunny:

This just reminded me of another film I've always enjoyed - K-PAX with Kevin Spacey. The race that Prot comes from, perhaps their method of transportation within light it merely transferal of consciousness to another energetic form.

And animals, and plants... perhaps more into what we view as inanimate.

It's all interconnected, spurred from a projection of consciousness.

Animals and plants are different unique spirits.

Gaia may be its own spirit or could be an accumulation of plants/the world/etc.

A hologram is the best term for it IMO and it explains the prevalence of fractals to this reality.

Heck, our creation may have been a reaction by Gaia to the knowledge that the sun will turn in to a red giant in 3 billion years... a way for Gaia to spread life, spread its consciousness out of the destruction.

The change in vibrations of the sun could indicate the upcoming change that the planet reacted to :sunny:

Awesome, I must read that!

Check out Amit Goswami's The Quantum Activist

 

That is our conceptual level of identification.

The earth moon system scribes a double spiral/helix through space.

 

So what? Even assuming you are correct, so what?

 

I think this fits in so much with my own concept----trying to make rational sense of universe, after having experienced, and continuing to experience a very irrational side to the universe.

Time as a fractal wave-----that is a cool concept that I will have to play with in my mind. Pretty trippy---but makes sense.

That's cool----and I think it fits in with my own gedankenexperiment that it is the holding into place of the light energy (or electromagnetic waves) by the zero-point field that creates mass, and that no longer being able to move in a linear direction, must jitter in place at the speed of light, that creates the dimensions (by creating mass) and therefore creates space-time.

Consider now that ultimately everything that is mass is in motion within that space time, as stated earlier in this thread (or another recent thread on the same subject---I am getting confused on which one I am answering)----and could it not be that this jittering in place at the speed of light while in motion within that very space-time continuum that the jittering creates, does not in fact create a fractal wave through all 4 dimensions.

My gedankenexperiment however, was done largely from the perspective of light---and from the perspective of the speed of light, light is timeless---a zero-space time particle. Fred Alan Wolf has explained this in his book, Parallel Universes, for example. But Wolf also adds an interpretation of light from our perspective---which is slower than the speed of light, using a geodesic interpretation as Minkowski did when he added the 4th dimension to the theory of relativity. In this slower than light perspective, light moves through time the way we move through space. It cannot move through space just as we cannot move through time. In the past, I have done a gedankenexperiment where from our perspective, time still occurs at the speed of light, but photons stand still (again, remember that in our here-and-now experience of reality, light exists only for an infinitely small instant of now, because fundamentally it is still a zero-space time particle—but that infinitely small instant creates the reality we understand as now—i.e. every individual gestalt of our reality is formed from light instantaneously hitting that gestalt (or form; or 3-dimensional mass), a portion of which hits the retina of our eyes. I say a portion, because another portion of that photon is absorbed by the object---which is what creates color to our reality. For example, there is a red and white Coke can next to my computer---all the frequencies of the photon that hit that can are absorbed, and only the red (or white on the lettering) is reflected back to my eyes so that I see a red and white can of Coke). But as all that happens in a single instant of now---each and every photon that simultaneously hits my eye, and hits every bit of every 3-dimensional point of reality in my room------is standing still (because it cannot move through space in my slower than light perspective where time exists). Therefore it is time (the speed of light) that is moving me, and every piece of my 3-Dimensional reality through this sea of photons that is absorbed as each piece of 3-D reality strikes these photons that again from my reality are standing still------which are partially absorbed---creating the color of mass around me, or absorbed within my eyes, creating sensory awareness of my surroundings.

Now consider this---my 3-D reality surrounds me, in terms of up-down, side to side, and front-back. Any point in that space must relate to all three coordinates which surrounds me in globe-like fashion. In fact, in whichever way I turn my head, as if I am the center point of a globe of coordinates, I see the 3-D reality of the room around me. Photons bathe me from every direction.

I have read before, that there is some speculation that photons do not go off in all directions of the universe---but move off into the universe in directions where they are perceived. In other words, I could say that within my room, since I am currently all alone and there are no cameras or other light recording devices, that if this speculation is true---all photons that are bouncing off of each point of the 3-D reality of my room (minus the portion that is absorbed to create color), are coming only to the retinas of my eyes alone (until someone comes in, or I turn on a camera or other recording device)---then that means that time is whatever direction I am looking at. This actually makes some sense from the implications of the Double Slit Experiment, because the Double Slit suggests that there must be a conscious intention to perceive (by implication of the result that there is conscious intention to record or perceive, when we are recording or perceiving position in order to create a collapse of the wave function).

But I am not alone in this world. My wife is upstairs, as is my son. I live in a neighborhood filled with people, in a world of countless individuals, each looking in a different direction. Which is to say that, time is in infinite directions around me. The universe is therefore moving at the speed of time (the speed of light) in infinite directions------which would make the most sense if the universe actually is of a holographic structure, and it takes mind to create that into a 3-dimensional reality. The true dimensions of time, are then only in each dimension allowable within the holographic structure of the universe.

But then----as you say, Tastyweat, at each point where photons are absorbed, whether to create color, or to create perception-----it is a fractal spiral.

This gedankenexperiment of 3-D reality moving through a time of stationary photons is something I have thought of before after reading Wolf’s Parallel Universes. Though I have not taken it this far---thank you Tastyweat for your insights. I could see both of my gedankenexperiments as complimentary----the first one existing from the perspective of the speed of light, the second one existing from our reality of sub-light speed, which is where time actually manifests. One is the inverse of the other----i.e. the timeless perspective is the inverse of the perspective in-time. From the timeless perspective, photons exist for only an infinitely small instant that encompasses all time and all space, while the in-time perspective we see photons moving at the speed of light, but exist at any given time at a specific point, because they are stationary in space-time in the here and now, and our physical reality of here-and-now moves at the speed of light in the direction of time.

Perhaps this is why Australian Aborigines draw pictures of animals and people and living and sacred things, as vortexes of energy. I have pictured living beings as, they exist in a mind dimension, as vortices of conscious energy, but that in physical reality that vortex manifests as our physical forms.

 

That's not a fractal... that's "just" a spiral. But yes, the pattern caused by our solar system through what one might consider an inert/stationary reference frame would look like an interesting set of helixes. The problem is though, does that have any practical use for us? Space is so empty, it's as if that pattern can be practically ignored.



I'm talking about the absorption of a photon into an atom/electron, not general behaviour of an atom or solar system

I think that pattern of light behaviour might explain the prevalence of fractals in this universe.



I put together a question to send to Dr Tyson as I thought his response could be interesting... posted it here:
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=467821

 

Let me take my thoughts a little further on this, and other implications I have wondered about recently.

I remember in my first Philosophy Class back in College, when I first came across Plato’s concept of the form----eidos---the source of our English word, idea. I was fascinated by the concept, but couldn’t help myself to consider it as, “…a quaint superstitious idea. They were so primitive back then.”

But yet this Platonic concept deeply influenced philosophy all the way up to Immanuel Kant. And it was not unique to Plato. Chinese Taoism had the same concept—that all that exists was first thought up by the immortal sages, and that when we make something, or even create something as we do with art, we are simply making manifest, the form that already exists within the universe, from the time of the ancient sages.

Then there is Carl Jung, who does not take credit for his concept of the archetype, saying that the tradition was handed down from Ancient Greece---the Platonic form. His interpretation of the Platonic form is probably the most genius interpretation of it within a modern scientific format. And the deeper you get into the concept of Jungian archetypes, especially in connection with the collective unconscious, it is hard not to wonder if the archetypical form is not limited to simply our own physical brains and their inherited structures. Add in Rupert Sheldrake’s concepts of the biomorphic fields and it gets even more strange, in terms of form.

I myself, over the past decade, have come to see myself as an essentialist---believing that being emerges from essence, not existence. One definition of an existentialist is one who sees the alternate of essentialism---that being emerges from existence. However this is not exclusive as there are existentialists who are essentialist. And I certainly consider myself existentialist under an alternative definition that is derived from existential as ‘human’ experience.

But as an essentialist, it is only within the past year or two that I have even tried to come to terms with the implications of essence. I never wanted to admit to such primitive notions as Platonic philosophy. But I have been intrigued by the concept of archetypes. Even Kant, who dismissed the whole question of existence as moot in order to raise philosophy to a more rational scientific plane, speaks of the thing in itself---the thing qua thing; that aspect of the thing we can never perceive because we can only ever know that aspect of the thing, for which we can perceive, and therefore the thing of itself will forever be beyond our perception.

Science now tells us that mass is made up of 99% unused space as you said---and you speak of a holographic structure that absorbs light in a fractal spiral---the same mass that I have written of as jittering light energy trapped in place by the zero-point field around it, and may in fact even have the structure of a holographic nature-----this is surely Kant’s ‘thing-of-itself.’ I can speculate upon that, but I can never perceive that because mass in my perception is always as a physical object of texture, hardness, etc.

But if it is true that mass is shaped and formed from the zero-point field around it, then how does any specific object of mass, attain that shape, structure, texture, hardness, and all the other qualities that I perceive it to consist of. On top of this, there are many such forms of mass (or in my animistic perceptions---all forms of mass), that are intricately connected to consciousness, and may even shape the universe around it based on its perceptions of the universe (again based on the Double Slit experiment, and implications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal). So---is it not possible that there could be some manifestation of eidos, an archetypical form----an essence that plays into the quantum structure that leads to mass in our universe?

Martin Heidegger has some very interesting comments on such things. He is an existentialist (based on both definitions above), taught to by an essentialist (Edmund Husserl). He felt that it is critical that we re-examine the concept of ‘being,’ going back to the beginning---before Descartes and even the Greeks.

In several lectures he examines existence of the thing. In one example (in a lecture titled, The Thing), the thing is a jar. He uses Indo-European etymology to explore various aspects of this concept of a jar, and then settles upon the etymology of the word, ‘thing,’ which includes the concept of ‘gathering.’ He relates this concept of gathering to an ancient Germanic concept he philosophically describes as a thinging of the thing.

I am paraphrasing and leaving a lot out---if you are interested, I am sure you can find the lecture on line---but the thinging of the thing---the becoming the jarness of the jar, is a process of bringing the fourfold into a manifested gathering-----the fourfold being sky, earth, and the human realm, and the realm of the gods, or the ether (sky), physical (earth), atemporal (immortal, or of the gods), and temporal (mortal, or of man)----all of this is manifested, gathered as the thing, the gathering of essence to be manifested as the jar. It is made of clay (earth), hollow, (filled of air, ether), it is made, according to its etymology, for sacred libation (to the gods) by man (mortals), The clay itself is formed by the various elements of earth and sky, man and gods, that broke down primal stone into clay, it is shaped and created by fire---and so forth all these forces representing a gathering of the four-fold. And all of this creates and becomes manifested as a thing that stands out---in this case as a jar.

Heidegger says that this process of gathering is to bring the fourfold into nearness (or as we refer to in these threads----the here and now). He ties this process of the gathering to a round dance of the appropriating of the four-fold---etymologically connected through the ‘ring’ (or as we refer to it in these threads---the vortex, or perhaps the fractal spiral). This makes me think of the ancient Indo-European swastika, as it is still used in India---a fourfold spiraling in of creation----or as Heidegger says, the worlding of the world.

Consider the gathering of the four-fold in the context of a universe filled with mass consisting of nothing more than the cosmic star dust of ancient short-lived giant stars that, shortly after the Big Bang, exploded and gave birth to all the elements above Hydrogen and Helium, and which fundamentally exist as mass as nothing more than light energy held in place by the universe as it exists as a giant zero-point energy field. And of course Dark Energy, whatever that is. And then, there is consciousness, which we know manifests, at least within ourselves and the life forms we understand. The fourfold is gathered as, for example, ether (unused space—the 99% of all matter), earth (cosmic stardust), atemporal (light) and temporal (time, or the here and now). Perhaps then—especially if this is a holographic universe where the mind creates the dimensions—it is consciousness that gives form, the essence----eidos.

This ties back to my gedankenexperiment in the other thread---a primal consciousness-of is the literal manifestation of mass----the form that provides the shape through which inertia, or in other words, the form through which the zero-point field traps light energy into mass, to create the objects of the universe----therefore the primal consciousness-of is the act of creation---the thinging of the thing.

 

Yes, effectively matter is just tightly controlled, spinning energy/light



Probably semantics, but thought you may like this explanation just in case.

There's no such thing as "reflection".

- The photon is absorbed by an atom (or specifically electron)
- The extra energy imparted by the photon rasies the electron to a higher energy-state, less stable, orbit of the nucleus
- This energy state cannot be maintained for long and so the electron drops back to a more stable state
- As this happens, a new photon(s) is emitted
- The different energy state dictates the wavelength and so colour

So a better term than reflection would be re-emission :sunny:

Ah, but what would you consider perception - what level of consciousness is required to perceive it?

If the universe is made out of consciousness, then surely that means light will go in all directions?

I think that would go against quite a few measured behaviours that still occur without measurement or observation.

Just because a conscious observation alters and outcome, does not mean that an alternate behaviour that's still bound by time would not occur with subconscious observation.

The only way for that to be true, would be if the fabric of space-time or energy is consciousness itself.

I don't think it's just people... every quark's creation creates and observer which at the same time creates time.

This is more that makes me think of it as a holographic projection of consciousness.

Outside of this physical reality, time is meaningless - it doesn't exist. It only exists as that energy is brought down into the "physical".

As our energetic consciousness dissolves back into a greater pool of energy, we are freed into the timeless.

These light particles exist independent of time, light that existed at the beginning of this iteration of a universe is still instantaneously existing at the start of the universe, as well as the end of this universe.

Imagine what we could do if we could tap into that information! There is an unimaginable amount of information included in light in my opinion.

This light can exist everywhere in an infinitely small instant... we become part of that energy again when we die, so perhaps our current model does have an explanation for the non-physical - we just don't interpret it as such.

I think that vortex may be more related to the communication pathway, the signal that connects us to our higher selves and the falling through such a vortex of light and time to reach the other side.

 

Interesting - I'll have a look into it.

That symbol is pronounced in quite a few things.

I've seen it quite vividly in my last trip.

It actually seemed somehow related to the center of the universe - I'm not sure how.

It was a multi-dimensional fractal folding in on itself - one of the most amazing things I've seen in a trip.

I think there's an extra-dimensional addition to fractals that we've yet to decipher.

 

The practical association is the worlds history brought forward in the double helix of our DNA. Stretching the mind here. It is not so much fractal as in organized irregular shapes but redundant and in repeating patterns. They may be fractal as in repeating irregular shapes or oscillations as in regularly repeating frequencies.

I will leave it to your own associations to determine what it and they may represent.

 

Certainly our perception is founded on a crystalline arrangement. That is by virtue of dendritic construction, light energy is transduced into the same picture time after time just as a crystal produces the same angles no matter how large the inclined surfaces. That is light is refracted to indicate shape. I say this accepting plasticity but noticing that each new moment is patterned on last with slight variation.

 

I was actually a bit drunk when I wrote those last 2 posts

Thank you---I think I have heard that---I am glad you corrected me---it is pretty exciting stuff.

I am not sure if the author of that explained it---I just remember reading it somewhere, and playing with the idea---they were talking about the light of distant stars and galaxies, and whether or not light goes clear accross the universe in all directions, or simply to where it is perceived.

Good point!

That makes sense---again I was playing with someone elses idea. On the other hand, I do see the universe itself as consciousness.

I definitely agree on all points.

Ah yes---The axis mundi portal---I have written quite a bit about the world tree, axis mundi, world mountain, world cave---etc as being a hollow axis----just as the grave and womb (our entry and exit points) are hollow---these are all often depicted as a swirling vortex---the medicine wheel comes from this concept as does the swastika-----and they are always the center. Wherever we find or make this axis mundi is the center of the universe. The sacred pipe, by the way, is also a hollow axis mundi.

 

We definitely seem to be on the same wavelength :sunny:

 

I wouldn't be surprised if someone already asked these questions but I suppose I will. Do we know that any of these three assumptions actually do exist? Can one prove that the butterfly they touch is really there? Do we even know that space exists? Without a shadow of a doubt do we truly know? What of movement? Perhaps movement is only what we percieve to aid in understanding the world around us.

We know that a human law gives us a human definition of what space and objects are. Who is to say that that is what any of it really is?

Yes, conciousness builds all things through a method of thought and definition.

 

Motion is illusion based on a mis-interpretation of a shift in attention.

All exists in the infinite now, we shift co-ordinates of the reality we are focused on by shifting our attention, this creates the illusion of the ticking clock we experience and as such movement.

Truth is stillness

 

Since we last talked, this is my take on it: All that really exists is energy, and that is only the 4th dimension the realm where light actually exists.

The physical only exists in the infinitely small moment of Now----a point of time that is infinitely small----but it is at this point where all that is comes together to manifest as physical being and existence. However, in the 4th dimension, everything is simultaneous---one giant infinitely small moment.

Mind is transcendent and exists beyond the infinitely small moment of simultaneity. As Husserl said, the essence of mind includes the ability to retain and to protend (a simplistic way to say this is that we can remember the previous moment and anticipate the next). Therefore the mind must be of something beyond the 4th dimension.

But in the physical world, we find ourselves in the three physical dimensions---which again only exist in the Now---the more significantly experienced Now being that of subjective understanding (which actually is a brief moment after the physical moment of Now).

I describe Now as that single infinitely small moment of a photon as it just enters the event horizon (yes, like a black hole) of a single atom. But that single photon is part of a universal (universe-wide) matrix of single photons that is the same moment of now. Time is localized, and subjective. Objectively (as in the matrix of photons), it is the same Now clear across the universe, but it is only experienced and understood in the local subjective sense. We experience Now at the same time it is experienced in a galaxy 400 million light years away---but it will be 400 million years before we could ever perceive anything about the Now as it happens in that distant galaxy. That now does not exist in the world of subjective experience here----it is imperceptible and therefore non-existent. Or to be more accurate, for us it exists in the 4th dimension. For the life in that galaxy 400 million light years away, we exist in the 4th dimension. In fact every object in the physical universe is lost in the cloud of non-existence of the 4th dimension. Because we only really perceive those photons that we are currently perceiving---nothing more. When we perceive that object, we are perceiving it from our past, even if it is milliseconds in the past---it is not the object we experience (for it is 'over there') rather the photon from that object that we perceive.

This single matrix of photons is a matrix of every photon in the universe that is at this single instantaneous moment standing at the threshold of the event horizon of every atom in the universe. One photon ahead is the past (the Now that is already gone). One photon behind is the future (the next moment of Now). All the photons that exist behind that matrix, in other words, all the photons in empty space between me and the next object, do not physically exist, for they are still in the fourth dimension--those that are moving away from me are in my past, and those moving towards me are in my future. But to say this is to speak from the perspective of the physical, and remember, the physical only exists in the Now, and appears to us through perception. Therefore all form and mass, all physicality, is a single infinitely small instant of 4th dimension energy (the essence) coming together in the now as single photons strike each atom that is the universe---and it is only that infinitely small portion of photons that enable my perception, to subjectively experience my localized subjective Now. Such photons would include the electrons that I internally experience as smell, touch sound, and so forth.

You may also decide that if this was true, then we may perceive three dimensions, but the only thing we could perceive would be the surface of what in reality are little more than two dimensional surfaces. How could mass have volume if the matrix of Now is only the photons given off by objects? Because within that mass are photons again interacting with atoms---the matrix of Now as it exists among the photons we call electrons, as they are shared between the atoms that create the molecules that form the mass. The matrix is concentrated in a single space and therefore is perceived as solid mass. Chemical reactions, the movement of electricity through wires (from one copper atom to the next), and other electromagnetic sharing of photons between molecules would all be part of this matrix of single photons, as long as it is only those that simultaneously at the very threshold of all these event horizons.

In fact I would suggest that the whole wave/particle paradox exists because the particle form of quantum particles exists purely from our perspective of seeing only from the subjective Now--the manifestation of the physical. Likewise it is because of a single universal matrix of Now that particles at opposite ends of the universe can be entangled.

One way to see this matrix is as a single flat pane or flat cell moving through the 4th dimension. We perceive it as a complicated 3 dimensional mish mash of positions through out the universe. But from the perspective of a higher dimension it represents a smaller dimension and therefore flatter so to speak. For example, we could compare it to a 2-dimensional flat plane in our own 3-dimensional universe.

At least that is what I am currently exploring in one of the books I am writing.

 

If this is the reality of time---then it seems to me that it demands a mind that is a priori, and as such is not emergent from physical existence.

We experience time because, as I pointed out form Husserl's philosophy of phenomenalism, our mind has the properties of retention and protention. If all that exists is an ever-changing Now, then our conscious minds must be able to transcend this reality to perceive the former existence of the past and the potential existence of the future.

If mind wasn't transcendent, then we would be trapped in the now, which would probably be a meaningless from an essentialist standpoint anyway.

If mind transcends time (and how else would you explain clairvoyance and other supernatural experiences) then this suggests that it originates in a dimension that is higher than one where all time and space ceases to exist---or to be exact, exists all at once at an infinitely small instant. Mind must transcend that, yet be able to experience the moment as it exists in the physical dimensions of existence at sub-light speed.

 

The nature of Time is to crush the a priori in the subjectively experiencing mind. Time takes control of our choosing capacities in regard to what time passes for, flows over, makes us be ourselves per things dutifully towards It's Existence. How time passes is the subjective delusion which results for the producer of the true War called Life.

 

Mankind is a slave to the clock they invented.....Being retired has freed me from that enslavement somewhat.... As for the previous deep thinking posts about time, I don't have "time" to read them.....;-)

 

Sometimes the most simple truth is also the most enlightening.

 

Yes that is right----if we did not find ourselves physically trapped in time, we would not experience life. In the same way, if we did not find ourselves trapped in the physical and actually knew the power and ability we, as consciousness, actually have, we would not have as much of a reason to experience life, or could too easily take unfair advantage against others who are here to experience life.