# The Illusion of Time: The Eidolon Metanoia



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

Executive Summary 


*"The Eidolon Metanoia"*
_On the Implications of the Illusion of Time
A Collective Thought Experiment_​ 

*Synopsis: *This work is the result of a collective thought experiment involving the premise of "The Illusion of Time." It draws on interdisciplinary knowledge, research, and examples to come a conclusion as to the reality of time, and then extrapolates the implications of that reality in meaningful ways. The final implication is that the only true driving force behind the universe is experience itself. The purpose of this summary is not to offer a complete understanding of the premise or its implications, that does not seem possible, but to give an overview to allow one to decide if the subject is of enough interest to justify continued exploration.
*
Supporting evidence for the Premise "Time is an Illusion":*

*A)* Through study into quantum physics, one comes to the conclusion that time is a subjective framework only, with no true basis in "reality". Much like "color", "sound", or "touch". It is a relative framework only, created entirely by the act of perception, and has no implications to the functioning of the universe at a fundamental level. 
*B)* Time is not simply "a" relative framework, it is THE relative framework. It is THE method by which humans relate to the universe, however, it does not actually exist within the universe itself, in that it is a perception only. A tool of experience and exploration. To quote Carlo Rovelli: "We never really see time, we only see clocks. If you say this object moves, what you really mean is that this is here when the hand of your clock is here, and so on. We say we measure time time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself, and the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, but we represent that as if everything is evolving in time. What happens with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is that we have to stop playing the game. Instead of introducing this fictitious variable - time, which itself is not observable - we should just describe how the variables are related to one another. The question is, is time a fundamental property of reality or just the macroscopic appearance of things? I would say it is only a macroscopic effect."
*C)* In the field of Biology, it is known and has been known that the senses are incapable of perceiving changes to the "outside" world. Our senses, our bodies, are only capable of perceiving changes to themselves. You may say "I see the tree over there" but what you are really saying "I perceive a tree." If your senses are incapable of perceiving an outside world, then the entire world is created internally, including the dimension of time. This creates something of a contradiction, as then, the internal IS the external, the subjective IS the objective, there is no logical separation between the two. 
*D)* At the fundamental level of the universe, time has no consequences. I do not mean simply nanoscopically. It can be thought of in this way: "Every action which is instantiated necessitates the simultaneous instantiation of its reaction." That is, we like to say that action/reaction is a function of time, but it isn't. The action necessitates the reaction, and this happens whether or not the framework of time is present. So, you are born. The act of being born intrinsically necessitates your death. No function of time can alter the effects of action/reaction. FURTHER, though, the action of your birth cannot be separated from the surrounding actions that result as a reaction of your birth. Your birth is not the reaction of your birth. Your birth is not the start of the action/reaction scenario. Your birth is a reaction, which can be traced all the way back through cause and effect to the beginning of the universe. And NONE of this requires time. From the instantiation of the Universe, and, theoretically, BEYOND it, the action/reaction scenarios that result in your birth already existed and no function of time had any effect. So, to quote MacTaggart, "Every event that has ever or will ever happen is then in the past, present, and future all at once. It is a contradiction." This is because time is a relative framework only, a framework that exists in order to provide a relativity within which we experience the universe. We have come to REPRESENT it as a concrete force in the universe, but it simply is not so.
*E) *The false acceptance of time as an actual force in the universe is a huge reason for the "gap" in our sciences and understanding of the physical world, and, hence, the nature of existence. There currently exists no theory using the dimension of time which can adequately predict or explain the processes of the universe across all levels, that is, from the macro to the micro. Many overly complicated "fixes" have been attempted, but none of them have proven to explain the fundamental functionality of the universe. The only equation which can even approximately predict physical phenomena across all micro-and-macroscopic levels is the Wheeler-Dewitt equation, which, as Physicist Carlo Rovelli said, removes time from the equation entirely. 

*Implications of the Acceptance of the Premise:

*If one takes it as true that time is an illusion, a framework created entirely by the act of perception, that then leads one to draw some very interesting conclusions about the nature of the universe and consciousness itself. These implications are still in the process of being understood, but I will list some of the most obvious here.

*1) *If time is an illusion, a relative framework of experience, then all things which "change", or are functions of time, are also illusions, or perceptions. This includes everything of which you are conscious. They simply do not exist on the Quantum level, nor on the Biological one, they are internal creations only, created entirely by the condition of consciousness through the act of perception.
*2)* If all things are illusions, that creates a paradox, as that would create a universe of illusions and perceptions with no outside force to perceive them. There must be something outside of the illusion that is perceiving the illusion. One cannot become conscious of an illusion from inside the illusion, any more than one can look in a mirror from inside the mirror, or create a dream from inside the dream. There must be a dreamer, a consciousness, in which the appearances are created. This has been called "consciousness", "awareness", "soul". The second point. 
*3) *We now have a model of the universe in which time is only a subjective framework used by consciousness to experience the universe. This is logical, and does absolutely nothing to change the fundamental functioning of the universe. It that sense, we have an entirely new premise of experience in which the universe is created by consciousness as a means of coming to and understanding of itself. This model is polar in nature, as in there are two points, and two points only. The consciousness, and that which the consciousness is conscious of. The awareness, and the dream it is aware of. The player, and the game. Everything within the game/illusion/perception is a creation of the consciousness as a manifestation of action/reaction. Further, in order to avoid paradoxes, it is a single consciousness. A single consciousness rising and meeting itself in an infinite variable of different forms. Much like in a dream, where we THINK we are a single character in the dream, but in reality the entire dream is arising from us, and, we are, in fact, a single consciousness that has created all of these different forms in order to experience those forms, and then, created the dimension of time in order to explore all of the variables that form the action/reaction scenario. This is an intensely large idea, and true understanding of it might necessitate further reading into the thread, and perhaps even bringing up your own questions or arguments. 
*4) *As far as the "practical" implications of all of this. It leads one to the logical conclusion that all experience and manifested existence are created for the simple experience of it. This, in turn, removes the line between objective and subjective reality, between good and bad experiences, and changes the relationship that we as human beings have to the act of existence. The how and why is hard to delve into in a condensed form, but it brings one to the conclusion that all experience is valid, and it removes fear from the equation of life. This is because the point of life becomes experience, as all the "things" that comprise "reality" are illusions created in the act of self-reflection, and so even something as obviously "scary" as death has no negative implications, it is an experience only. YOU (the consciousness) does not die, for you are not the YOU (The illusion, the appearance) that can die in the illusion. Much like dying in a dream, the dreamer remains. Much like dying in a game, the player remains, ready to dream or play another experience in the act of self reflection.What this does is free one absolutely from being "scared" of following one's dreams. The purpose of life is to experience, with absolute allowance, and every perceived "negative" is actually a positive in that is an experience with no possible lasting "negative" implication. Thus, there is no difference in definition between negative and positive. 
*5) *Thus, by acceptance of the premise and the extrapolation of the implications thereof, one alters ones entire perception to the act of existence and the purpose of life, as well as the nature of right/wrong, good/bad, etc etc. Such an idea, if accepted by the majority of humanity, has the potential to end war, greed, and fear, as it brings one to the conclusion that none of those acts, in any way, shape, or form, leave one better off. Experiencing them is still valid, as experience IS the point of existence, but we have experienced them, and this knowledge gives us the logical premise to decide otherwise, with no fear of any truly "negative" consequences. 

*Conclusion: *You may be asking yourself. "Ok? and?" I will only say that I have expected that in some measure. My hope is that anyone, really, will find enough resonance or interest here to delve further. Living this knowledge into experience, providing an "example", and "resonating" with the idea. Anyone who accepts the premise and the implications thereof will find themselves at the forefront of a new experience, a new paradigm. A union of spirituality, logic, and science. 

It is interesting to note, as I realized post-composition of these ideas, that the Maya did not predict the end of the world on December 21st,2012, they predicted the End of Time. It is nothing more than a very interesting resonance and/or synchronicity. But it is interesting indeed.

As I said, this summary is a summary only, and to achieve a truer understanding of the subject matter, one must read the thread, and perhaps contribute to it. This summary was created simply to allow you to come to a Yes/No conclusion as to whether it is something you wish to experience and explore further.


Link to the thread:http://personalitycafe.com/intp-forum-thinkers/114938-time-illusion.html


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

You have something against time, don't you?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Also, The Mayans did NOT predict the end of time. Their calendar is circular, and it merely starts over again... It's the end of an age.


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

josue0098 said:


> Also, The Mayans did NOT predict the end of time. Their calendar is circular, and it merely starts over again... It's the end of an age.


Not just the end of an age. The Mayan Calender is a "wheels within wheels" or "gears within gears" type of deal. It is circular, yes, but what it was pointing to on December 21, 2012, was not as simple as "the end of an age". It was the conclusion of the calender, the end of THE age. The end of the GREAT cycle. The GREAT wheel. Not simply one of the smaller "wheels" or "gears" or "ages" or "months" etc. The end of time in the sense that it really is the concluding point of the calender. The Mayans saw the point beyond as something which could no longer be quantified with time, a huge mystery that was impossible to explain from the viewpoint of time, or the calender itself. Thus their reasoning behind ending the "Great Cycle" at that point.

I am an occultist, friend. These things are what makes my heart beat.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

ThePermiePagan said:


> Not just the end of an age. The Mayan Calender is a "wheels within wheels" or "gears within gears" type of deal. It is circular, yes, but what it was pointing to on December 21, 2012, was not as simple as "the end of an age". It was the conclusion of the calender, the end of THE age. The end of the GREAT cycle. The GREAT wheel. Not simply one of the smaller "wheels" or "gears" or "ages" or "months" etc. The end of time in the sense that it really is the concluding point of the calender. The Mayans saw the point beyond as something which could no longer be quantified with time.


Maybe so, but I'll be eating cereal on the morning of December 22nd and wondering why people thought things would change.


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

josue0098 said:


> Maybe so, but I'll be eating cereal on the morning of December 22nd and wondering why people thought things would change.


You don't understand the premise. You are free to eat cereal and continue your existence on December 22nd exactly as you are now. No one can change your experience but you. If eating cereal is what you want to experience in this life. Eat a truckload. 

Your disapproval of the premise does nothing to either validate or invalidate it. You simply do not believe it.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

ThePermiePagan said:


> You don't understand the premise. You are free to eat cereal and continue your existence on December 22nd exactly as you are now.
> 
> Your disapproval of the premise does nothing to either validate or invalidate it. You simply do not believe it.


The premise makes no sense and why are you telling me that I simply don't believe it? I already know this. Belief is for those that don't know.


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

josue0098 said:


> The premise makes no sense and why are you telling me that I simply don't believe it? I already know this. Belief is for those that don't know.


If you are saying it is illogical, then belief has nothing to do with it. 

Exactly, belief is a leap of faith. The model of the universe that you now hold to is illogical. But you believe it. 

Can you disprove or argue the premise? If the answer is no, then how can you say it makes no sense? It is simply that you reject it, because it does not suit your beliefs.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

ThePermiePagan said:


> Did you read what you just wrote?


Do I know the future? No. Therefore, I don't BELIEVE it. I did read what I wrote. I was implying that you also don't know.


EDIT: Stop editing your posts to fix things.


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

@josue0098 Yes I made a mistake, so I edited. Notice the reason for my edit? The point was what you wrote was a contradictory statement. However, I assumed you would not understand that, and simply reject it, so I elaborated.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

ThePermiePagan said:


> Yes I made a mistake, so I edited. Notice the reason for my edit? The point was what you wrote was a contradictory statement. However, I assumed you would not understand that, and simply reject it, so I elaborated.


How, exactly, is it contradictory? Are you talking about your entire original post, or about the Mayans? because I'm talking about the Mayans still.


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

josue0098 said:


> How, exactly, is it contradictory? Are you talking about your entire original post, or about the Mayans? because I'm talking about the Mayans still.


Exactly, belief is a leap of faith. The model of the universe that you now hold to is illogical. But you believe it. 

If you are saying that the premise I have put forth is illogical, then what is your reasoning?

Can you disprove or argue the premise? If the answer is no, then how can you say it makes no sense? It is simply that you reject it, because it does not suit your beliefs, not that it makes no sense.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

ThePermiePagan said:


> Exactly, belief is a leap of faith. The model of the universe that you now hold to is illogical. But you believe it.
> 
> If you are saying that the premise I have put forth is illogical, then what is your reasoning?
> 
> Can you disprove or argue the premise? If the answer is no, then how can you say it makes no sense? It is simply that you reject it, because it does not suit your beliefs, not that it makes no sense.


My reasoning is that the big wheel also goes round and round until it starts at point 0 again. I can neither prove nor disprove it, but I can argue it. And you say the model that I hold to is illogical, as in it makes no sense, and then go on to say that yours does. First, I'm not even talking about the universe, I'm talking about a calendar that is circular and made by the Mayans. and second, you seem to go around in circles in just about every post I've read. Also, why are you trying to take me down by talking about something that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about?


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

@josue0098 Your quote of "It makes no sense" was in regards to the Mayan calendar? Wow. Huge miscommunication. 

When I spoke of "The Premise" I was speaking of my original post, not the Mayan Calendar, that wasn't my premise. 

You then said "The Premise" makes no sense. So I assumed you where speaking of my original post. Hence, I called your argument into question. From your end, I look like a huge asshole, from my end, you looked like an idiot. 

Well then, lesson learned. On with life.


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

Much love, cheerio, join me for a spot of tea some time and all that crap. 

Bed time.


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

But ... then again if the Mayan Calendar makes no sense to you.. then why did you feel the need to correct me on something you know nothing about... OH fuck it!

Good fucking night.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

ThePermiePagan said:


> But ... then again if the Mayan Calendar makes no sense to you.. then why did you feel the need to correct me on something you know nothing about... OH fuck it!
> 
> Good fucking night.


No, the calendar makes sense, just not the conviction that it "ends" at a certain point if it's circular.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Does anyone remember back a few years ago when the Aztec calendar reset and how nobody gave a hoot about it?

Oh, and there have been so many predictions for the end of the world that Wikipedia set up an entire article to deal with all of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> Does anyone remember back a few years ago when the Aztec calendar reset and how nobody gave a hoot about it?
> 
> Oh, and there have been so many predictions for the end of the world that Wikipedia set up an entire article to deal with all of them.
> 
> List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


::facepalm:: 

I never said it was the end of the world. This thread has nothing to do with that.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

ThePermiePagan said:


> ::facepalm::
> 
> I never said it was the end of the world. This thread has nothing to do with that.


Sorry, I just read the first page and saw a flame war raging over whether or not the world was going to end in 2012.


----------



## Wulfyn (May 22, 2010)

Nice article, thanks for writing it up. I think that there are a significant number of problems with the premises. Some I think can be cleaned up in terms of definition, but some others I think are fairly fundamental. I'll go through them one per post as otherwise I think it will be very difficult to have a good discussion!




ThePermiePagan said:


> A) Through study into quantum physics, one comes to the conclusion that time is a subjective framework only, with no true basis in "reality". Much like "color", "sound", or "touch". It is a relative framework only, created entirely by the act of perception, and has no implications to the functioning of the universe at a fundamental level.


1. How do you, through quantum physics, come to the idea that things with a subjective framework (space, time) have no basis in reality?
2. Rather than quantum physics do you mean general relativity?
3. How do you define reality?
4. Colour (electromagnetic wavelength), sound (vibrations through matter), and touch (force) are all physical senses, and therefore quite unlike time - how are you relating these things to time, as I don't understand what link you are trying to make.
5. Are you saying that Colour (electromagnetic wavelength), sound (vibrations through matter), and touch (force) are not real?
6. Relative frameworks (as described by GR I assume?) is not the same as perception. For example if I am travelling near a large gravitational force I do not perceive time as having changed as time is also within my own frame - only an external observer will perceive a change. Therefore time is not a matter of perception, rather the opposite (time does change despite not perceiving it).
7. Even if time were entirely created by the act of perception, what needs to be doing the perceiving? Are you saying that there was no time before consciousness?
8. Even if time were entirely created by the act of perception, how does this lead you to conclude that it is not a fundamental aspect of the universe? I think you are missing some steps here because it does not logically conclude by itself, it simply begs the question.


You may find it easier to explain yourself (in the sense that I may be able to better follow it) if you use some slightly more formal philosophical format. And don't tell me to just go read the thread - this is your summary so please explain it yourself.


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

Wulfyn said:


> Nice article, thanks for writing it up. I think that there are a significant number of problems with the premises. Some I think can be cleaned up in terms of definition, but some others I think are fairly fundamental. I'll go through them one per post as otherwise I think it will be very difficult to have a good discussion!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Answers (to the best of my ability):

1. Time has no actual effect on anything in the universe. Cause and Effect function outside of the bounds of time, and time is simply a method we use to relate to those variable experiences. In Quantum Physics, I believe they call this "The information protospace". Remove time, nothing changes. 
2. No
3. Everything which we as human beings perceive. 
4. Color, sound, and touch are all based on time. All are vibrations, and matter is itself essentially a wave, it winks in and out of perceivable reality at a frequency, much like sound or light vibrate at a frequency. If time is a creation of the human perception, then all things dependent on time for their creation are as well. 
5. Define real. We perceive them. What we perceive is real to us. Part of the point I am making is that there is nothing outside of perception, everything we perceive is a fabrication of consciousness for the sake of experience. If time does not exist within the fundamental functioning of the universe, then neither do color, sound, or matter. In that sense, the definition of "real" becomes skewed, everything which we perceive is real, and there is nothing outside of it, save consciousnesss. 
6.This example simply relates physical variables to other physical variables. The human still perceives time. Can you perceive the change? Have you ever lost track of time? The fact that the passage of time is subjective within consciousness hints at its nature. 
7. The universe does not need time to function. Time is a fabrication by consciousness in order to experience the universe. Much like color is a fabrication of the brain to experience the universe. Or smell. We smell molecules, they don't actually have smells, they are just molecules. The smell is entirely created within the brain. 
8.It may perhaps appear as though I jumped to conclusions. It is perhaps because I am familiar with more material. Removing time changes nothing within the universe. Remove time and all action/reaction scenarios play out the exact same. Remember, that removing time is not the same as stopping time. Stopping time is stopping time. Stasis is a function of time. You may think that from birth, it takes time for you to die. However, from the moment you where born, you where already necessitated to die, and, to go further, the action of your birth can be traced through action and reaction to the birth of the universe. Removing time does nothing to change this. Time has no effect on the functioning of the Universe. These ideas are all present within Quantum Physics. It is hard to wrap ones head around, but essentially it would appear as though everything was happening simultaneously. This is itself an inadequate explanation. However, when one realizes that removing time changes nothing accept our ability to relate to and experience the action/reaction scenarios, you begin to get the picture.


----------



## Wulfyn (May 22, 2010)

@ThePermiePagan

I think I see where you are coming from now. Am I right in thinking that this is an extension of deterministic philosophy? If the universe is truly deterministic (strict cause and effect) then all 'events' in the universe will have happened simultaneously, in which case there is no need for time. Am I right in thinking this is a main argument here?



I have a few more specific questions in response to your above answers. Thanks for taking time to pick through my list, I'm enjoying the discussion and would appreciate your time (see what I did there?  ) in answering them.

1. General relativity states that space and time are not separate but rather connected. We can see this in the relationship between time and space in the mathematics and in thought experiments. This was empirically confirmed when atomic clocks were paired on earth and one sent to space and then found to be different once they returned. As time and space are linked then if time is unreal then space must also be unreal. (This relationship is still true in QM if you derive the Hamiltonian, where space and time are treated very differently, from the Lagragian). What are your thoughts on this line of reasoning?

2. You are right that all of those are based on time, but so are some other things. For example motion is based on time (and in this sense is equivalent to colour as colour is defined by wavelength). More fundamentally the relationship between energy and matter is definied by the speed of light, which in turn is defined (in part) by time. If time does not exist then how do you explain it's presence in such fundamental equations?


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

Wulfyn said:


> @_ThePermiePagan_
> 
> I think I see where you are coming from now. Am I right in thinking that this is an extension of deterministic philosophy? If the universe is truly deterministic (strict cause and effect) then all 'events' in the universe will have happened simultaneously, in which case there is no need for time. Am I right in thinking this is a main argument here?
> 
> ...


I feel the deterministic idea creates a false dichotomy. I think choice is consciousness. If you where to look at things very strictly, you may say "everything is determined", but in actually, fate and free will are a false dichotomy. They don't actually arrive at a different set of circumstances, they both only arrive at choice.

To explain. Free will is being force to make choices. Every moment, you make a choice, and you can't stop making choices. Every variable, you have to choose. You don't have the freedom to not choose, so in a sense, every variable that you do choose through free well is fated, because you don't have the option of not choosing, so you have no choice(or you have choice). Sitting and doing nothing is still choosing. Under fate, you are being forced to not choose, so you have no choice(or you have choice). The equations of free will and fate both amount to nothing at all. Choice is Consciousness. Choice just is, it isn't controlled by an outside force. Either free will or fate both imply control by an outside force, but in the end neither actually changes the outcome or nature of choice. 

1. Carlo Rovelli's answer to this is: "Congratulations, you have successfully manipulated a clock!" The clock is a physical variable, it isn't time, it doesn't measure time, it measures physical variables in relation to other physical variables, in this case on an atomic level. We represent those physical variables as if they are evolving in time, but they are just physical variables, and as such, are able to be manipulated and are subject to all the same inconsistencies as any physical variable. Time itself is not manipulated, just a physical variable. 

2. Yes, motion is defined by time. What you have to understand here is that time isn't just "a" relative framework, it is THE relative framework of humanity, and most likely any and all conscious beings. It is THE way we perceive. All the senses and experiences we perceive and experience are results of our construct of time. Everything you perceive is simply a construct, a dream of an idea, if you want to put it that way. Imagine you have an idea in your head of a house that you want to live in. You can see the house in your minds eye, but it is a static idea only, so you daydream about living in it, what it would be like, what it feels like, smells like, etc etc. You have now a picture of the universe. Consciousness has created this universe as a means to explore an idea in a personal sense, and uses time as a way to relate to the experience as something more than a black and white idea. Further, if you think about dreaming, you realize you can smell and taste and feel and see everything in your dreams. Brain practice, right? What makes you think, if it so obvious that the brain can create sensory phenomena entirely without outside stimuli, that it can't do that when you are "awake"?

Also, the answer about the equations you are talking about can be extrapolated by what I have already said. I do not want to be rude about this, but I have learned that simply giving answers is not always conducive to actually giving understanding. It becomes me talking at you. If you involve yourself, you will see the answer.


----------



## Alediran (Aug 31, 2011)

@_ThePermiePagan_. Hermetic student?

I ask because the ideas in your OP are exactly those presented in The Universe is Mental, and are older than Christianity.


----------



## Wulfyn (May 22, 2010)

PermiePagan said:


> I do not want to be rude about this, but I have learned that simply giving answers is not always conducive to actually giving understanding. It becomes me talking at you. If you involve yourself, you will see the answer.


Let me explain my position. What you wrote at the OP is full of holes. It's hard to get started as to just how contradictory / ill-explained / confusing what you have written is. Everything that I have written so far is just about your first premise.

That said it is very hard to write up stuff like this in a way that isn't full of holes. You've clearly put a lot of effort into this and some of the points you make are very intriguing, so it's very apparent that you are intelligent. Because of this I want to engage with you on these ideas, and I feel that it would be disrespectful to just reply based on what you have here due to the workload you have put in. So I am making an assumption that at least 90% of the holes are just down to communication and therefore what I'm doing here is trying to clarify those points so that we can talk about the rest of it.

You are right that giving answers is not always conducive to giving understanding, but I'm trying to understand what you are saying and not the subject matter itself. I am involving myself to get clarification of what you mean. If you want me to 'dive in' at this stage then I would honestly start ripping into you about just how flimsy your whole base premise is - that your argument that time is not an observable within QM and therefore according to that theory is not 'real' is weak by leading on to say that I wouldn't place faith in any model being completive when it does a terrible job explaining gravity (unless you believe that gravity is also an illusion) and in fact some of the best advances in physics over the last decade has been when you look at it from an entropic rather than quantum perspective, where time is fundamental. So we can either have a theoretical physics pissing contest, or we can follow down your argument line.




> I feel the deterministic idea creates a false dichotomy.


Possibly, but as I never touched on fate vs free will (which has more to it than just determinism) then your point is irrelevant. You've not answered the question however. The reason why I'm asking is that it creates an important differentiation in the culture of the argument. Stating that all events happened removes the need for time, whereas anything else results in a need for time, even if time is emergent (and therefore possibly illusory) rather than fundamental.




> 1. Carlo Rovelli's answer to this is: "Congratulations, you have successfully manipulated a clock!"


Rovelli creates a problematic conclusion in this line of argument (and rememberthat even he once stated that time *does* exist, it is just an entropic emergent property rather than a fundamental due to the inability to bind time with a self-adjoint conjugate necessary for the maths to work in QM) because following that same line of argument you can question any part of it. You could say that it is space or energy or EM force or a number of other things that is being distorted in the clock that is causing the differentiation (with time being an immutable fundamental) because this would give you the same manipulation. It is then a leap to state that it is time specifically that is what is not being measured to fit the pre-existing thought. All he has really done is say that measurement is imperfect which therefore questions the entire validity of the empirical nature of science.




> What you have to understand here is that time isn't just "a" relative framework, it is THE relative framework of humanity, and most likely any and all conscious beings.


This is problematic as it is starting to sound like Penrose who started off with some astounding physics and then tried to move into explaining consciousness (hence the mess that is ORCH-OR). Simply put you don't have a clue about what consciousness is. As you state time is a subjective experience to humans (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that our perception of it is flawed) so it doesn't make a very good framework as everyone is running in different frames (which is starting to sound more like GR than QM).

My first degree was in neuroscience and I have a poor idea of what consciousness is. Even the most amazing people in the field such as Pinker, Dennett and more than I have time to write up here has a poor idea of what it is. Pinker has done some very interesting work on what time means to people but even that is fuzzy at best. For you to state that time is THE relative framework of humanity is to over-reach so far that it's not even hypothesising, it's just guessing.

The rest of the paragraph is a total mess of ideas. There's no doubt that our experiences are subjective, and there's no doubt that dreams are based off of the memory of things experienced plus things conceptualised - yet strangely you fail to point out how time and space are VERY subjective and inconsistent in a dream but not in everyday reality, suggesting that neither are truly constructed in consciousness.





> What makes you think, if it so obvious that the brain can create sensory phenomena entirely without outside stimuli, that it can't do that when you are "awake"?


This is just begging the question. Who's to say that you aren't dreaming whilst you are "awake", and that real sensory phenomena are not just encoded into hexagonal mosaics on the 2nd and 3rd neuronal striates and then just replayed back into consciousness during sleep when lack of external stimuli allows for these artifacts to propogate into consciousness - the stimuli always existed from external senses it just was time delayed into consciousness due to lag. Where's the evidence to show the brain created this ex nihilo, and if it did how did it do this, and if you can answer that please explain how it is doing the same thing with time.

You're also making the assumption that dreams are more real than time might be, but I can fly and die in my dreams so just how real are they? They are real in the sense I have experienced them, but then as I stated above all experiences are subjective. You can say that about anything that might be real, not just time. Just a total mess of an idea.


----------



## Bluelamp (May 18, 2012)

Wulfyn said:


> If you want me to 'dive in' at this stage then I would honestly start ripping into you about just how flimsy your whole base premise is - that your argument that time is not an observable within QM and therefore according to that theory is not 'real' is weak by leading on to say that I wouldn't place faith in any model being completive when it does a terrible job explaining gravity...
> 
> fate vs free will (which has more to it than just determinism)...
> 
> ...


ThePermiePagan mentioned in another thread that he is not talking about time in the Einstein sense of time as a location (he's OK with that). Basically do a thought experiment about what a quantum transaction would be for a photon. A photon from our point of view never ages; it would "perceive" its worldline through the universe all at once. If you add this to the general idea of how decoherence works then you can very easily come to the idea that the information protospace is preexisting with all possibilities for all of spacetime. 

Hence there's no "time" creating new states just new quantum transactions from our viewpoint transforming within a preexisting collection of states. It's not deterministic since the protospace contains all possibilities. Yes time in the Einstein sense and the sense of being linear with respect to quantum transactions is an emergent thing (related to us being stuck in a low energy Minkowski spacetime metric). 

I like ORCH-OR, I attended a conference at the University of Arizona where Penrose and Stuart Hameroff talked about it. I actually prefer Tony Smith's version (Smith has collaborated with Hameroff also). Smith also uses the ideas of Paola Zizzi (who was at the same conference). Here's Zizzi's Wikipedia page (it's short):



> *Paola Zizzi* is an Italian theoretical physicist who is most notable for her work in the field of loop quantum gravity, which regards the universe as a kind of super computer. She proposed that the universe has the computational complexity sufficient for the emergence of consciousness in the period known as the cosmic inflation in her paper titled `Emergent Consciousness. Quantum versions of digital physics have recently been proposed by Zizzi, Seth Lloyd, and David Deutsch. Zizzi has formulated a realization of digital physics in what has come to be called "computational loop quantum gravity", or "CLQG".Currently she is engaged in research with the department of pure and applied mathematics of the University of Padua in Italy.


ThePermiePagan does not have time and space as subjective; he's OK with the Einstein space-like time and he's just putting it and consciousness and all possibilities fundamentally in a preexisting information protospace. As for dreams, there is the Jungian idea (via analysis of dreams, art, literary works, etc.) that certain archetypes seem built into humans and if so this would be via the information protospace just like everything else.


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

Wulfyn said:


> Let me explain my position. What you wrote at the OP is full of holes. It's hard to get started as to just how contradictory / ill-explained / confusing what you have written is. Everything that I have written so far is just about your first premise.
> 
> That said it is very hard to write up stuff like this in a way that isn't full of holes. You've clearly put a lot of effort into this and some of the points you make are very intriguing, so it's very apparent that you are intelligent. Because of this I want to engage with you on these ideas, and I feel that it would be disrespectful to just reply based on what you have here due to the workload you have put in. So I am making an assumption that at least 90% of the holes are just down to communication and therefore what I'm doing here is trying to clarify those points so that we can talk about the rest of it.
> 
> ...


I think Bluelamp did an excellent job explaining this in a way that is more along your own line of thought. 

As far as the dream, and neuroscience. You and I will certainly bump heads here. I do not believe that consciousness exists in the brain. I do not believe consciousness exists in the body. The brain exists as something of a translator between this time-based "construct" of reality and consciousness. 

I have to come to this conclusion, and Bluelamp ellaborated a bit, because the body is a physical construct of consciousness. Matter is a construct based on the illusion of time for its manifestation, and so how can consciousness be seated in a brain which is itself a construct? This comes back to the image of the mirror. You cannot look into a mirror from the inside. Everything we experience is a reflection, or a dream, including our physical bodies. How then can one create a dream from inside the dream? How can a "dream" brain create the "dream" of which it is part? It can't. That creates a singularity. It creates metaphysical Solipsism. In order for consciousness to exist it must be what is reflected, it must be looking into the mirror and experiencing this reality. That is to say, consciousness must be outside of all that we are aware. Consciousness is simply the awareness in which the dream is taking place, and cannot be directly perceived, as it never changes, it is simply aware. 

Judging from your background you will take affront to these ideas. An easy way to imagine it is this: The universe is a video game, consciousness is the player, and the brain is the console. So you may look at everything going on in the game, and see the console buzzing away and think "Oh the console must be the source of consciousness", it isn't. It a computer of a sort, and consciousness is the awareness using that console to experience the universe.


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

Alediran said:


> @_ThePermiePagan_. Hermetic student?
> 
> I ask because the ideas in your OP are exactly those presented in The Universe is Mental, and are older than Christianity.


I study many things. Occultism is one of them. = )

I am well aware the "meat" of the idea is very old, what is new is western science implying an extremely similar conclusion.


----------



## Coldspot (Nov 7, 2011)

Isn't saying that everything we perceive is an illusion calling reality an illusion? If so, then time is not the only thing that should be talked about. Our experiences are also based on our perception, so they must be an illusion as well. This kind of thinking does not help our lives (whether illusion or not), I much rather think about how I can improve things in the world as it is perceived.


----------



## ThePermiePagan (Sep 5, 2012)

Coldspot said:


> Isn't saying that everything we perceive is an illusion calling reality an illusion? If so, then time is not the only thing that should be talked about. Our experiences are also based on our perception, so they must be an illusion as well. This kind of thinking does not help our lives (whether illusion or not), I much rather think about how I can improve things in the world as it is perceived.


Which is exactly my point of view. Extrapolate. 

Saying everything we perceive is a construct of consciousness does not dismiss it, but it does change it. It frees us from fear. Only consciousness exists, our reality is our creation.


----------



## anniba (Sep 24, 2012)

u w0t m8?
not srs
reading this later brah
seems moderately interesting


----------

