The Extant Future

[humanoidlord]

Okay now I understand.

There’s been a lot of talk about the universe being a simulation of some kind, but here’s my thinking about that: who’s to say that the universe of protons and electrons and energy and so forth can’t be both the computer and the program and the simulation all at the same time? I mean, at this level of our technological advancement the computer and the computer program and the virtual reality simulations that we run with them, are all three distinct things. But perhaps a sufficiently advanced technology could incorporate all of them together to generate the real, physical universe that we observe; for some purpose that we don’t understand. Perhaps the universe is some kind of machine that’s evolving in a certain way to fulfill some kind of purpose. Or maybe it’s just an experiment to see what will happen.

This is all wild speculation of course, but if indeed the universe is a fixed 4-dimensional object as this model seems to indicate, then it would seem to have a lot in common with our idea of a machine, and we’re just a feature of its operation.

The only real mystery in that interpretation is consciousness. As David Chalmers points out, we could be automatons (or as he likes to say, “zombies”), and still perform all of the functions that we perform now, but without consciousness. So why is consciousness an aspect of the equation in the first place?

pretty much what i was trying to say!

 

[Gambeir]

I get what you’re saying and that appears to be valid within the context that we observe: namely, where the past is fixed and the future is unobservable. So in purely relative terms, free will appears to exist in our reference frame.

Maybe that’s all that matters. In other words, maybe we do have free will, because we do make choices based on our nature and our external influences, and those have direct consequences on the future. So in a sense, we are participating in the process of shaping the future, and it doesn’t really matter that all of those choices and actions are predetermined from a 4D perspective.

In this interpretation, our consciousness / free will is simply an additional physical influence on the ultimate shape of the immutable 4D universe, similar to gravity and electrical charge. We manifest our nature in a linear sequence, and we’re unaware of the future, so we can view this as a manifestation of free will. The fact that we can’t change the future that’s already laid out from the 4D perspective is, in this sense, irrelevant. We can’t see or feel our shackles binding us to an immutable sequence of events, so in a subjective sense, we’re not slavish automatons from our POV. And if we could see the whole 4D object, what choice would we want to make anyway – to do something that’s contrary to our nature? That seems like a bitter form of free will: to go against my intrinsic nature for the purely egoistic satisfaction of proving that I’m not an automaton in a fixed 4D labyrinth of causality.

You have free will; you do not control the will of others. Our own free will is bound by the limits of the group think. What the group thinks/believe is what determines what is possible: The rulers have always understood this.

The future, like the present and the past, is made from information. The information we receive forms a program. It is our software: Our individual actions and thoughts are the result of the programming and experience modified only by the constitution of the individual. Our own unique individuality is the unpredictable element in the human condition.

I don’t know what a solitron tunnel is, but it sounds like you’re describing a violation of conservation, like the conservation of energy or the conservation of lepton number, and we’ve never observed something disappearing like that (or appearing from nothingness, for that matter).

I’m generally very suspicious of any model that elevates our consciousness to a cornerstone of physical reality. The universe existed for a long time before any life forms could exist. So to make such an idea viable, you’d either have to give consciousness god-like powers like the ability to retroactively manifest the past evolution of the universe for itself to exist in, or, you’d have to redefine “consciousness” so broadly that it loses all sensible meaning (a system of atoms in a high-energy plasma would have to be conscious, for example), and both of those options look unacceptable to me.

OK, first off correct me where necessary, which might be often, but I thought the whole idea behind so called quantum mechanics/physics is that particles/quanta pop in to and out of existence. In other words, the premise behind quantum physics is to explain where matter comes from.

A Solitron is said to be various things depending on the science, but fundamentally it is a quantum tunnel which forms a string like tunnel connecting two ends together, and if properly understood can be seen as a dependent part of existence across space and evidently time as well.
http://coll.pair.com/csdc/pdf/fal10305.pdf


Consciousness can influence what quanta stay>That's my understanding. So reality is really real, and that the mind and it's world are not: They are two separate things inhabiting only one physical plane. The presumption is that consciousness resides elsewhere~ it comes from where quanta reside, and therefore it is logical that it can create from which it came.

It still looks like a very small number are completely mind-controlling the vast majority, from where I’m sitting. Even most of my intelligent friends are, almost entirely, controlled by the corporate media + intelligence agency PsyOp machine.

But we shouldn't diverge into politics and the socioeconomic power structures that are destroying the world and crushing the last glimmers of human dignity from existence. Because most people are still mentally enslaved by one branch of propaganda or another, and discussing it only makes them angry and irrational.

Yes...yes~ I agree with you

 

[Gambeir]

Let me refine this idea of consciousness a little more.

The idea of some people is that the mind/brain is a biological fractal receiver. That consciousness, your individuality, who you really are, well that's coming in to the body from some unknown means. Hence the reference to a Solitron as a conceptual notion of how this works. If the cosmic string is broken then life ceases. If the brain is damaged it malfunctions as any other malfunctioning device might. So the over all idea is that life is an experiment and when you die your consciousness is intact since it never really existed in your own mind in the first place.

Not too sure about this idea. It's appealing but I sense that we are more than an animated flesh receiving data from the vacuum of Universe. I feel we are truly independent beings whom have an ability to receive data from Universe but I'm not too sure about the return home deal. That's about all I can say on this right now.

However, the vast amount of psychic/medium information seems to validate the former idea that life is like an experiment and that our consciousness comes to our minds from an external source not in this realm.

Our soul's or consciousness, well It has been described to me personally as life as a human being and living in a very large house, sitting along a beach where a vast ocean stretches out in front of a very large house, and in the house there are said to be many rooms occupied by people. I considered this all very symbolic as the person/medium described setting out on the ocean in a small boat. The ocean being Universe and or time or both. Setting out on the sea of time and going out in the ocean of the Universe in a small boat is to me a symbolic image of a venturing forth for another experimental life.

 

[Gambeir]

I'm quite sure you're familiar with this concept. Light cone - Wikipedia

So it appears to me that free will is contained in a light cone of time. Thus the present defines or contains the possible expressions, and the future can be reasonably charted which then also predicts the extent of free will in a future time.

Future history is observable and predictable to the aware. The possible future defines or contains what forms of expression an individual can take (in the main obviously).

 

[CasualBystander]

So recently I've been finishing my work on a new theoretical physics model, and I realized that what it's telling me is that the future already exists just like the past.

I find this idea deeply disturbing on a philosophical level, because it dashes all notions of free will and indeterminacy, and I suppose that I'm rather fond of my assumption that I'm the captain of my own future. This new theory seems to be telling me that we're just along for the ride: whatever we do - whatever we will do, we've already done.

But on the other hand it resonates perfectly with the recent work of Yakir Aharonov and Robert Griffiths, which has found that quantum mechanics becomes elegantly symmetrical if the future boundary conditions of our experiments are predetermined just as the past boundary conditions are determined. And of course it eliminates the conventional interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation by stating that quantum events aren't uncertain after all; they're simply unknowable from the reference frame of "the present."

I wonder how you feel about this idea. Honestly it's been haunting me for weeks, and I'm still not sure how to feel about it. It would be interesting to hear how others react to this idea, because honestly I'm pretty convinced that this theory is correct.

There is some argument to be made here.

Biblically God is a higher dimensional being that knows all of history and future. For a higher dimensional being viewing the universe it would be like picking tracks on a CD or thumbdrive.

On other notes:
Saw a recent speculation that the "big bang" spawned a mirror anti-entropic universe.

This caused me to wonder if antimatter is anti-entropic.

 

[CasualBystander]

Question of TRM:

Is there any conclusive evidence that anti-matter isn't anti-entropic?

I couldn't find any. The tests to prove it doesn't do anti-gravity are inconclusive (the error range is too great).

You would expect anti-matter to be anti-gravity if it is anti-entropic because you are viewing the timeline in the wrong direction.

 

[nivek]

For a higher dimensional being viewing the universe it would be like picking tracks on a CD or thumbdrive.

Perhaps the universe is a part of the higher dimensional being, or the whole, with us like the dirt under the fingernails...

...

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

Question of TRM:

Is there any conclusive evidence that anti-matter isn't anti-entropic?

I couldn't find any. The tests to prove it doesn't do anti-gravity are inconclusive (the error range is too great).

You would expect anti-matter to be anti-gravity if it is anti-entropic because you are viewing the timeline in the wrong direction.

Antimatter behaves exactly like matter in every way that we can measure - the only differences are charge and parity, so a collection of antimatter particles behave exactly the same way as a collection of matter particles. I see no way that it could be anti-entropic. Even the possibility of a perverse interaction with gravitation, which hasn't been ruled out, offers no path to anti-entropy that I can see. I think you'd need a universe where time is flowing backwards, for anti-entropy to exist (and I've seen one model where this might occur at some point in the future of our own universe, but it seems highly speculative - there's a strange and intriguing paper about it called "A Gravitational Arrow of Time."

Perhaps the universe is a part of the higher dimensional being, or the whole, with us like the dirt under the fingernails...
...

Oh I wouldn't go quite that far - there's plenty of dirt in the universe to fill the role of dirt under the fingernails of the cosmic whole. We're more like the dust mites rooting around in the dirt under the fingernails, lol.

 

[CasualBystander]

Antimatter behaves exactly like matter in every way that we can measure - the only differences are charge and parity, so a collection of antimatter particles behave exactly the same way as a collection of matter particles. I see no way that it could be anti-entropic. Even the possibility of a perverse interaction with gravitation, which hasn't been ruled out, offers no path to anti-entropy that I can see. I think you'd need a universe where time is flowing backwards, for anti-entropy to exist (and I've seen one model where this might occur at some point in the future of our own universe, but it seems highly speculative - there's a strange and intriguing paper about it called "A Gravitational Arrow of Time."


Oh I wouldn't go quite that far - there's plenty of dirt in the universe to fill the role of dirt under the fingernails of the cosmic whole. We're more like the dust mites rooting around in the dirt under the fingernails, lol.

Well...

A "perverse interaction with gravitation" I would take as evidence of anti-entropy.

Not aware of any mechanism that would discriminate the mass from antiparticles from the mass of regular particles.

After all anti-particles have the same rest mass as the corresponding particles.

Charge polarity (to my knowledge) has no effect on gravitational attraction.

 

[Thomas R. Morrison]

A "perverse interaction with gravitation" I would take as evidence of anti-entropy.

It's not. Even if antimatter falls up in the Earth's gravitational field, that wouldn't be anti-entropic behavior. Electrical charges come in attractive and repulsive polarities and those interactions are not anti-entropic, so analogous gravitational interactions wouldn't be either, despite the flipped sign of those interactions.

Not aware of any mechanism that would discriminate the mass from antiparticles from the mass of regular particles.

We know that antimatter has the same positive inertial mass as ordinary matter: it's been measured to high precision with mass spectrometers - if you know the magnitude of the charge and the speed, measuring the deflection in a constant magnetic field gives you the inertial mass, and positrons/electrons and protons/antiprotons are known to have the exact same inertial masses. So it's natural albeit unproven to assume that antimatter falls the same as matter within a gravitational field. I gather that you mean "gravitational mass" rather than "inertial mass" (which are equivalent in GR, but not in bimetric theories) - that can be measured too, it's just really difficult.

After all anti-particles have the same rest mass as the corresponding particles.

It may be possible for antimatter to have an inverse gravitational charge to ordinary matter. There are some experiments underway at CERN to measure it - the AEgIS and ATHENA experiments and another one, iirc. They're making antihydrogen, cooling it way down, and then trying to see which way it falls, up or down, and at what rate. It's an extremely difficult experiment though, so that's why they haven't had any results that are even remotely conclusive.

But even if antimatter falls up, that wouldn't be anti-entropic behavior.

Charge polarity (to my knowledge) has no effect on gravitational attraction.

Polarity doesn't seem to matter, but of course the magnitude of an electrical field and its interactions with other fields affect the rest mass of a system, and therefore the gravitational interactions, albeit subtly, since those contributions are generally negligible compared to rest mass.

 

[nivek]

The new theory just takes that idea one step further, and says that it isn’t just the past that’s set in stone as a long 4D coil reaching back billions of years to its formation around the Sun, but it also extends into the future in the same way, and this is true of everything. My inclination is to take this very literally, and regard the universe as a fixed 4-dimensional object, like a jewel, and we're just moving across it one second at a time. Plato was right, apparently, when he said that time is the moving face of eternity.

Past, present, and future in contant flux, from a physical point of view, even things seemingly 'set in stone' appear to be in a state of flux because our perception of our speed of movement through time is always changing...There are ways to see through this, which would yield many advantages...

...

 

[Sheltie]

I just watched a video a few days ago by one of the creators of the first quantum computer, Geordie Rose, founder and Chief Technology Officer of D-Wave. He believes quantum computers will soon be able to create a nexus for interacting with parallel universes. He talked about how quantum computers are still in their infancy but that in the relatively near future they will possess amazing intelligence.

When I was growing up, the future was always about space ships and aliens but now it's looking like the future may be way beyond anything we imagined in the 1970's or 1980's. The idea of many universes or even infinite universes like Hugh Everett predicts is so mind blowing and difficult to accept.



When CERN first went on line I didn't give it much thought. Now I suppose I'm one of those people who worries about just what's really going on there.

The strangest thing I took away from his lecture is his notion that the speed of light is constant because it's actually a maximum computing speed in a universe that is really a computer simulation.

 

[spacecase0]

for a moment think of time as a dimension,
just like we see something like length
so, how would humans make sense of time ?

 

[Shadowprophet]

for a moment think of time as a dimension,
just like we see something like length
so, how would humans make sense of time ?

I have a lot of thoughts on Time, But I've found that one flaw I have is, I possess a lot of confidence and zero shame or patience, Sometimes I assume people will want my input before I even stop to consider that maybe they don't.

So, I apologize if this was addressed to someone specifically, I didn't mean to butt in. Time has a lot of definitions, What happened yesterday is gone and what will happen tomorrow seems yet to transpire.

To be honest, I've done a lot of speculation on time, I believe Someday, Time will be considered a fundamental force closely tied in with Gravity and electromagnetism. This is an important realization because of the way Spacetime curves around objects of mass.

I believe Time as we perceive it is simply limited by our own ability to perceive it. As Thomas suggests, I believe all of time from beginning to end is a "finished whole" That is to say, Time, Past present and future is like a Quantum system. It's all there, It's all in play at all times, But we "experience" it in a very limited way, I believe Time could be spherical or at the very least "Not Flat, Because I believe the only thing that prevents us from experiencing the past present and future all at once, is a simple gravitational horizon.

This Horizon prevents us from experiencing the past and the future all at once, And so we progress through time Frame by frame. But, Time does possess a different meaning for how the word is used,

What time is it? Not this Time. Time and time again. We need our social measurements and perceptions of time for our daily lives, But what we call time isn't what time truly is, This curvature of time, Creates this horizon that forces us to experience time in the way we do.

But that's just my take on the issue. but, We don't fully understand Gravity, Not really, To be truthful and in the same turn, We don't fully understand time.

 

[spacecase0]

I have a lot of thoughts on Time, But I've found that one flaw I have is, I possess a lot of confidence and zero shame or patience, Sometimes I assume people will want my input before I even stop to consider that maybe they don't.

So, I apologize if this was addressed to someone specifically, I didn't mean to butt in. Time has a lot of definitions, What happened yesterday is gone and what will happen tomorrow seems yet to transpire.

To be honest, I've done a lot of speculation on time, I believe Someday, Time will be considered a fundamental force closely tied in with Gravity and electromagnetism. This is an important realization because of the way Spacetime curves around objects of mass.

I believe Time as we perceive it is simply limited by our own ability to perceive it. As Thomas suggests, I believe all of time from beginning to end is a "finished whole" That is to say, Time, Past present and future is like a Quantum system. It's all there, It's all in play at all times, But we "experience" it in a very limited way, I believe Time could be spherical or at the very least "Not Flat, Because I believe the only thing that prevents us from experiencing the past present and future all at once, is a simple gravitational horizon.

This Horizon prevents us from experiencing the past and the future all at once, And so we progress through time Frame by frame. But, Time does possess a different meaning for how the word is used,

What time is it? Not this Time. Time and time again. We need our social measurements and perceptions of time for our daily lives, But what we call time isn't what time truly is, This curvature of time, Creates this horizon that forces us to experience time in the way we do.

But that's just my take on the issue. but, We don't fully understand Gravity, Not really, To be truthful and in the same turn, We don't fully understand time.

I am pretty sure I understand time
and think it is a field force
gravity being caused by time flowing unequal on one side of something than the other...
the 3 field forces are all at right angles to each other.
it is really all quite easy unless you start to come up with ideas like spacetime
for a moment think about spacetime
it is 2 clear ideas that are now not separable...
as if we are to dim to tell them apart.
why not relabel the distance signs to other towns with distance-time ?
maybe distance-price...
mutle the math so bad that no one can ever figure out how far one town from another one really is...
anytime someone from physics or math tries to combine 2 ideas as one that has no hope of being separated,
ask them why they have lost it.

 

[Shadowprophet]

I am pretty sure I understand time
and think it is a field force
gravity being caused by time flowing unequal on one side of something than the other...
the 3 field forces are all at right angles to each other.
it is really all quite easy unless you start to come up with ideas like spacetime
for a moment think about spacetime
it is 2 clear ideas that are now not separable...
as if we are to dim to tell them apart.
why not relabel the distance signs to other towns with distance-time ?
maybe distance-price...
mutle the math so bad that no one can ever figure out how far one town from another one really is...
anytime someone from physics or math tries to combine 2 ideas as one that has no hope of being separated,
ask them why they have lost it.

It's true, All these ideas on time are theories, But consider for a moment, That time is relative, to me that relativity speaks of course or a unified field, Possibly Quantum. You could, of course, be on to something with time being a field force, But, We know that as an object is accelerated it tends to gain mass and time seems to slow down for the accelerated object,
An example of time dilated. But, Would not a field force be a Quantum system anyway?

Now, Indeed this could be a Quantum field, To be honest, I'm not sure.

I know that this is my Jam, I love these kinds of discussion

 

[spacecase0]

maybe it is quantum in nature, but so far I have yet to see someone admit there is a time field, much less check for a quantum nature of it.
go look at examples of how the field forces work,
how about a generator...
electricity and magnetism are at right angles, and then you have motion at the 3rd right angle...
how do you define motion ? potentially as time ?
same thing with a radio wave, electric and magnetic fields are at right angles, with "time" being at the 3rd right angle as the direction of "away"
the experiments are all done,
you can see how they work pretty clear.
by the way, the reason that most people never spotted this before is that we are in a quite large time field in the first place, so, hard to notice small changes when you are not looking for them in the first place.
it is just a matter of taking a view of things that shows what is going on.
and not taking a view of things that makes things so complex that almost no one ever figures out what is going on.

 

[Shadowprophet]

maybe it is quantum in nature, but so far I have yet to see someone admit there is a time field, much less check for a quantum nature of it.
go look at examples of how the field forces work,
how about a generator...
electricity and magnetism are at right angles, and then you have motion at the 3rd right angle...
how do you define motion ? potentially as time ?
same thing with a radio wave, electric and magnetic fields are at right angles, with "time" being at the 3rd right angle as the direction of "away"
the experiments are all done,
you can see how they work pretty clear.
by the way, the reason that most people never spotted this before is that we are in a quite large time field in the first place, so, hard to notice small changes when you are not looking for them in the first place.
it is just a matter of taking a view of things that shows what is going on.
and not taking a view of things that makes things so complex that almost no one ever figures out what is going on.

That's really well thought out and I need to really ponder on this, Because in my mind, What's weird is, I do Kind of think of motion as time, At least as far as there is no motion that would not consume time to transpire, No matter how minuscule, This is why I love these kinds of conversations, Sometimes, I get to see how someone else pieces his thesis together. That allows me to think in new and different ways about a thing.

Thank you