[notime] No such thing as time or motion - The nature of change

[Robert Vaessen]

All -

As mentioned in an early post to this list - I’m planning to re-post some of my previous ‘No Time’ conversations. Conversations with correspondents who wrote in regards to the ’No Time’ article I wrote/posted at: <http://www.robsworld.org/notime.html <http://www.robsworld.org/notime.html>>.  I will be re-posting, dissecting, discussing this correspondence here; on the ‘Akinetochronism’ forum/mailing list.  Here (see below) is one of the early discussions I engaged in with a correspondent. Please feel free to agree, disagree, or discuss these ‘No Time / No Motion’ ideas.

In this particular discussion/conversation I received an email from ‘Dale Mufgord’ - In that email he remarked on the nature of our universe. My reply examined what it means to live in a ‘static’ universe. Where the concept of motion implies change, from which we derive time.

Note that some ‘redaction’ has been applied to protect Dale's identity and occasionally for brevity’s sake. In the case of email addresses or full names, I simply omit the full email address or name.

- Robert

The original post from Dale Mugford.  

> On May 12, 2004, at 01:29, Dale Mumford wrote:
> 
> I stumbled onto your page typing "time does not exist" into Yahoo.
>  
> Thanks for the thoughts, I enjoyed them.
>  
> "It is simply our mind applying an understandable framework to the progression of our consciousness through a series of static, overlapping, and simultaneously coexisting, multidimensional universes"
>  
> I wouldn't agree that the universe is static, nor would I agree there are 'other' universes. By static you imply a finite universe[s]? Could the universe be not comprised of an unmoved mover? Instead of 'either/or' consider 'both/and'. Finite descriptions necessarily implicate infiniteness and vice versa. Perhaps both are available, and... 
>  
> everything divided and different belongs to one and the same universe. Even if you divide and differentiate the all into separate universes, again these are simply manifestations of your "mind applying an understandable framework".
>  
> It was a truly excellently written piece, with some tremendous thinking involved. Your 'overactive imagination' is wonderfully overactive my friend. I'm sure you would agree it is unfortunate that in attempting to illustrate the true non-linear nature of time we must use a linear language system in a three-dimension working space!
>  
> Thought I'd take some time to write,
>  
> Keep thinking, dreaming, feeling, moving,
>  
> Dale Mugford,

My reply was a dissection of my thoughts spurred on by Dale’s probing questions.

> On May 12, 2004, at 19:03, Robert L. Vaessen <robert at robsworld.org> wrote:
> 
>> "It is simply our mind applying an understandable framework to the progression of our consciousness through a series of static, overlapping, and simultaneously coexisting, multidimensional universes"
>>  
>> I wouldn't agree that the universe is static,
> 
> A system which changes (opposite of static) can only change over time. If you believe that the universe is not static, then by consequence you must believe in time. Change can only occur in a system which contains time. The two are mutually inclusive. Time is only measured through change, and change can only occur over a period of time.
> 
> If time does not exist, then no changes can occur. A system without time cannot change. It must be static.
> 
>> nor would I agree there are 'other' universes. By static you imply a finite universe[s]?
> 
> My belief in the existence of multiple universes forms the basis of how someone can experience what 'appears to be a changing universe' when the system (in which we exist) itself is unchanging (static).
> 
> I do not believe in anything infinite, but I could be wrong. My proposal of a static multidimensional universe can exist as an infinite or non-infinite model. Instead of a single infinitely changing universe, imagine an infinite number of static realities (universes). Instead of physical movement within a single infinitely changing universe, imagine a consciousness that senses/experiences a sequence of adjacent static realities.
> 
> Personally, I don't believe in the 'Infinite'. If one agrees that there are any limitations on what can be, you will eventually run out of acceptable combinations. As soon as you run out of acceptable combinations, you put an end to infinity.
> 
> Infinity is a very big place. Larger than I could possibly imagine. I can imagine a multidimensional universe so large that we cannot see the horizon. Just because we can't see the horizon doesn't mean it's not there. It's pretty easy to embrace the concept of infinity when you can't see beyond your own personal horizon.
> 
> People (mankind) used to think that the earth was flat because they couldn't perceive the curvature of the earth. That all changed (irrevocably) when astronauts in orbit looked down and put an end to our (the human race) entire way of looking at our universe.
> 
> One astronaut irrevocably changed the world view of all mankind.
> 
>> Could the universe be not comprised of an unmoved mover? Instead of 'either/or' consider 'both/and'. Finite descriptions necessarily implicate infiniteness and vice versa. Perhaps both are available, and...
> 
> An unmoved mover is exactly what I'm proposing with my static universes. Our consciousness (we are only human) is only capable of processing our experiences in an 'either/or' manner. The consciousness is the 'I'. It is the mover. It moves in a non-physical way. It moves experientially instead of physically.
> 
> If we were able to process more than one probability path at a time, then we could experience a 'both/and' experience.
> 
> Perhaps we could learn or teach ourselves how to attain a higher level of consciousness. Imagine what life would be like if we could experience a 'both/and' type of experience.
> 
>> everything divided and different belongs to one and the same universe. Even if you divide and differentiate the all into separate universes, again these are simply manifestations of your "mind applying an understandable framework".
> 
> Yes, you're right. Even a multi-dimensional universe is a single universe. I've differentiated it (multiple-universes) in order to impose a framework of understanding onto something this is difficult to conceptualize given our pre-disposition to belief in a changing universe.

How things change… This examination of email correspondence is allowing me to explore an ‘alternate universe’ where Yahoo is/was the primary search engine used by millions of people every day. In 2004 Yahoo search had stopped using Google to power it’s search results. After buying up Inktomi, AlltheWeb and Overture (owners of AltaVista), Yahoo was the largest search portal on the internet - in the ‘alternate universe’ where Dale resides.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://robsworld.org/pipermail/akinetochronism_robsworld.org/attachments/20151220/418f37d8/attachment-0002.html>