| Time
Roads takes one or two aspects of Deconstructing the Universe
and attempts to expand upon them. It is an entirely different work not
to be seen as an extension of Deconstructing the Universe,
though on those one or two aspects where they do overlap, it can obviously
be seen as an extension of it. Each work should be viewed on its own particular
merits or theme, and are not meant to be tied together, especially since
this is only a preview of Time Roads, and it is only a rough
draft and still fairly unformed whereas Deconstructing the Universe
is finally finished and complete unto itself, it is what it is. Time
Roads is what it isn’t and isn’t what it is, like the Ying and
Yang each circling and becoming dominant one moment only to have yield
the next. The content of Deconstructing the Universe is very
broad, and is meant to spark ones own imagination, ideally to broaden ones
possible perceptions and far widen ones intended or previously thought
preordained potential perspectives, rather than to always simply say this
is that way, or this or that should be seen as such. Time Roads
focus is far more narrow, and it actually does take risks in saying such
and such is the case, or the Universe works or can be viewed in such and
such a way.
Including this preview with some incarnations of Deconstructing the Universe 1.8 was hard to justify in that Time Roads is very different than the former, fewer possibly could relate to or understand what little there is of it in its present state as it tends to be written in a way that one really needs to understand a lot of other concepts like those contained in Deconstructing the Universe to even begin to understand it and still even then might not agree with it. The reasons for including it are: that this much of it is done; that some might get something out of reading it; that it might never be finished; and in those few ways where it shares similar ideas with Deconstructing the Universe, it can be see as an attempt to go beyond it whereas just stopping might have been just as good. Do not judge Deconstructing the Universe as a work influenced by what you might think of Time Roads if you read this preview. As I said above, one is done, complete, and the other is but a preview or sketch of what may be yet to come. Sometimes a glimpse of what may be in the future is better to have than not have, providing you can keep it into that narrow context of its tentativeness and temporal uncertainty. |
| With a more complete understanding
of time it becomes possible to learn from your mistakes, actions, and events before they have actually occurred since the repercussions of any and all future actions and events exist within and cause and sustain the present, as much as any supposed past does. Knowing is of no use if you are determined for whatever reason to do them anyway. This is not destiny for all possibilities about the future exist in the present, not just the select few roads one clings to for security and continuity of expectations. |
|
Contents 1- Time Roads and Existential Roads: An Overview 2- What and What Else: The Same Thing 4- The Million
Floor Department Store:
5- Consciousness: Pick a Constant, Any Constant 6- Combining Perspectives:
More than the
7- Potential Experience
Pies: Your Pieces in
8- Paradoxes Unraveled: Completing the Circuits
Appendage 1: Higher Level Universe of
|
|
Part One - Time Roads and Existential Roads: An Overview
Out from a multitude of paths
It is wrong
to think that anything can happen at any time. We settle the potential
experiences to ourselves down to fewer more manageable tracks like roads
we can learn to navigate upon. By this limiting of near limitless potential
to fewer more well-worn paths frequented more often than others, it is
not unlike how a road forms over time. Some ways to go seem more logical
than others, some decisions more apparent, and gradually pathways form.
The more we tread these pathways, the more imprinted and the more obvious
they become as a byway or a way to go, or a way to be. While on these byways,
experience becomes predictable like traveling a road you know well. You
have expectations of where you will be and what you will experience at
times nearer to where you are, and the more frequently traveled the time
road, the further you can extend that expectation forward into the future
from where you are currently at or what you are currently experiencing.
We are
not locked onto these roads any more than we are locked into any one future.
We can exit at any junction or even dare to go off-road so to speak at
any moment we wish. To go onto another road is to reenlist into another
preset list of expectations of varying degrees of paving, how well they
are developed and therefore how known or predictable based upon how often
we have traveled them in the past.
It is
hard to get lost, really lost. With so many roads everywhere one can only
go so long before there is again an order to things and things again become
recognizable and begin to make sense again. One can be distracted and when
venturing off onto side roads momentarily lose ones bearing as to where
one is, in relation to location as with actual roads, or in relation to
future events with time roads so to speak, or expectations for or on that
new timeline or new road one has inadvertently or absent-mindedly stumbled
upon by not paying much mind to where one was going or by not having a
great predication to go in one way over any other. Once diverted on to
a somewhat new road or new pathway, it is not long before that too becomes
recognizable and eventually predictable as you fall into the flow or pick
up the scheme of things of what that road is, or was, as if you have literally
traveled them all at least once before and just need some time occasionally
to reacquaint yourself with what they actually are, and by doing so, remembering
where they lead or which major thoroughfares or junctions they cross up
ahead.
Existence
and experience itself follows this example as well as individual existences
over varying timelines. One needs not to remember oneself actually having
traveled the road in the past but how others stood at the same relative
moments in their times. The roads you choose or how you live or choose
in different, successive, and ultimately in a sense predictable or memorable
versions of your own multiple futures, alternate presents, and alternative
pasts, these are the easiest and clearest known paths to you the longer
you have been you. Alternatively, the less locked you are into your own
definition or idea of your own existence while you are still sorting that
out, the less defined the roads are, but roads are still there. The roads
the more others took in the past are defined as well, they too exist as
temporal templates of what to expect and how to define ways to go.
In a
sense to enter into existence is merely or similar to losing ones bearings
on which timeline, or which road, one is currently traveling. The further
you travel down upon it, the more recognizable it becomes again, and the
more clear the roads, choices, or options for what lies ahead or potentially
lies ahead of oneself, the more clear this becomes. One has or will eventually
exist as any other existence and traveled any other of their roads as well,
if not in the past then in the future, but if the future and the past are
merely constructs or different aspects of the same thing indistinguishable
from another point of view as being different from each other, all roads
are equally our own, and ultimately open to everyone. All roads have a
purpose. They prevent people from wandering around aimlessly and provide
an expectation or order to experience and give a discernable, recognizable,
and re-locatable location in space, in actual physical roads, and in time
and experience in more figurative sense of time roads or existential roads.
By creating and defining these roads we build up expectations of repeatable
experience and give them a “location” so to speak. One again can go off-road
to what is lesser defined by lesser numbers of others lesser traveled but
one eventually again stumbles across some more well defined road, some
more commonly defined “life”, and some degree of civilization, like stumbling
across a highway after getting lost in the woods. Eventually walking down
that highway, one becomes aware again who one is (defined by that motion
down that road), or who or what one thinks one is now, and eventually figures
out what that means and where that road leads, what paths or options cross
it ahead, and how one can get lost or explore within the context of that
existence or upon that system of roads.
As a
road system provides for greater numbers to travel in a more orderly fashion
and provides a mappable location in what otherwise would be chaos of a
near infinite ways to go (and in the sense of other types of roads mentioned
here, a near infinite ways to get lost in when, where, and what to be)
it provides endless ways to experience the same things. It is a grid, a
framework, but only for and by those who commonly choose to follow it.
While you follow it you gain predictability, a what, a when, and a where.
Going off-road at any time is like trying to get lost in a land you know
very well. Sooner or later you will stumble back upon another road providing
another what, when, and where, another set of expectations for where they
might lead you and where or what others before who held to one or more
of those three tenants of what that means, how they might have interpreted
those roads, and where or how they took or shaped them to suit themselves.
The paths you or others might have taken only define the roads more clearly.
Any path or shortcut anyone might invent or stumble across might one day
become a new road should it become taken repeatedly by oneself or others.
The roads only exist because they are the ways we would choose to go more
often than other ways. Existence, experience, and time are or have roads
in ways or things to be in which we would choose to experience more often
than others.
Realities
can grow organically like civilizations or cities, small groups, or popular
restaurants or clubs. Some people get together and define a way or place
to be and the more popular it becomes, the more want to be there and the
more likely it is to be imitated by others. Suddenly it reaches a critical
mass and it is something everyone just has to try. The more ways to define
something, the more perspectives there are upon it, the more real it becomes
to more others. Likewise, the more real it becomes to more others, the
more perspectives there are upon it, the more defined and rigid it has
to become. It no longer is a small thing where anyone can influence it
fully. One becomes just a small part of its larger plan, and the larger
it becomes, the more each must conform or give up to be part of its whole.
Yet again
it too is just another road, another way to be. More highly defined realities
are merely more well traveled roads. Each may seem a destination, yet each
is merely another way to go, another how to be. Just as no when is ever
absolute from any where, no when or where exists apart from any what. Space
is merely a road to provide a “where” defined by those who travel that
road more than any other way to define a where. Time is merely a road to
provide a way to be “where” more than once. With time, one can have more
wheres over time or else one would always be just “here”. Over time one
can be sometimes over there, or here, or somewhere else. One is always
“here”, but here just seems to change with the added definition of time
to have been somewhere other than where one is now. And finally and the
hardest to believe, the “what” is merely another road, another way defined
to combine or multiply the what. As time can give one multiple wheres,
“what” provides multiple ways or things to be at multiple times creating
multiple wheres. None of these necessarily is the focal point or pre-dominates
over any other. All three define and sustain each other. As here seems
to change with the added definition of time giving it a past where here
seemed to be somewhere else not here now, what seems to change by viewing
it through the perspective of time seeming to have been or to become something
other than what it is now. Take away time and the concept of a past but
leave a what and a where and there is no “there” for everywhere one has
ever gone or could go always was and will be “here”. There would be no
“what else” for all that one was physically ever was or could be would
be or would become what it “is” as only time separates what it seems to
have been from what it is or could be, and it would always be the same
thing. Going back far enough in science, religion, or philosophy, that
is for most, once all part of the same big “what” at one point.
Keep
the what and time and lose the “where” definition and reality as you know
it collapses too. Though the what can change over time, if it is always
“here” and never “there”, it is always whole and never separate or anything
else. Though one could see it that way, or believe it could see itself
as separate even though without possessing another where, it could never
actually exist as separate. One could also conceive of the previous example
of a what without a where, also far different from how we perceive it now,
as one. For all three of these definitions to exist as we perceive them,
it requires multiple versions or instances of both others. To be a what
you need multiple wheres and multiple whens. Where also requires multiple
times, and neither space nor time can exist without something, a what to
be acted upon or changed. Each of these definitions are roads we enter
upon and ascribe to ourselves to define our existences. None are absolute
and each is both relative to and contingent upon each of the others to
define its own means of existence. Without each having a what, where, and
when to keep them separate, take out any of the three aspects, and everything
collapses into everything, everywhere, all the time. Pick any what and
it needs a when and where. Pick any where and you need a what and when.
They are all aspects of the same thing.
Since
what you are seems less arbitrary and more defined than simply where you
are or when you are, one must remember that without a where you are relative
to, anything else that is not you, everything and you would simply be here
and one thing. Without time, there would never have been any time you were
different than what you are nor could you be anything you are not now.
Your entire existence (apart from possibly an unchanging soul, though
basically unchanging is not relative to the world we experience which is
only defined by change) depends upon your when and where and is completely
defined by such. Without those being different than anything else you would
not exist as anything separate. Your existence is dependent upon a history
which created you and a future of possible realities to exist within from
this “now” onward (or you would be dead). As much as your existence requires
a place in time relative to a not “now”, you need a “you” relative to a
“not-you”, and by that a here where you occupy, and a there for everything
else. What, when, and where you are are all the same thing, and they are
inherently defined by perception or by being currently perceived. They
are the road of perception and anticipated experience you are currently
traveling. The road you travel provides a channel or stream of predictable
perceptions into you, but you control which roads lead to which others,
which you feel like changing it to, and when to turn down roads you only
seem to never remember traveling before, yet by traveling them, will again
become familiar to you or make sense to you again.
If you
can believe that you can be you yet be in another time (yesterday, tomorrow,
etc.) or be you yet be in another place (London, Paris, etc.) yet understand
the what-when-where are the same thing, then one can begin to see the what
is just as changeable. To believe you can be you and be something else
as easily as sometime else or somewhere else, though like being somewhere
else or sometime else must be worked out within a particular structure,
is conceivable with some effort. And as I said before, as roads through
space are ways to sort out the wheres, where one can go or be anywhere
but generally falls to specifically commonly defined routes, and timelines
are roads through experience where multiple time versions of others or
oneself tend to pick more predictable routes over others, so too can the
“what” of the equation be thought of as roads through organizing what seems
to be the source of perceptions into known recognizable routes of ways
to be or exist more defined the more they are traveled by more others.
They are routes to come in on, travel down for awhile, and leave or turn
off where junctions occur ahead. Like known roads or known timelines, the
more you travel them, the more sense and the more familiar they become,
but you have traveled, will travel, and in some way are traveling all those
roads, just as one can more easily conceive of once having been down all
roads through a place around oneself at one time or another, or even having
been down multiple timelines at one point as well. The more certain roads
of existence are traveled, the more others or oneself tend to travel them
again, and the more expansions or additions will be added to them.
What was was to me
Though
modern theorists routinely regard space and time (the where and when) as
a single continuum, though in my opinion missing completely the third leg
necessary to make it stand so to speak, because of this lacking of space-time’s
inclusion of the what I will continue speaking of space and time for the
time being as if they were separate concepts or states. The where of the
equation is the simplest to understand. Before you have a handle on what
you are, and hopefully most will be mulling that question over in one sense
or another for as long as they live, you can grasp the concept of space
or place. You are here. Everything and everywhere else is there.
Things there can come here, and one day you can go there, or more accurately
bring all of there here to you at once by seeming to be going there because
your “here”, though always here, is also capable of being there as well.
Here becomes something that occupies no set point in space, here becomes
relative to wherever you happen to be at any point, and this begins to
make sense somehow.
Time
is also something relative to where one is so to speak, always “here” though
in time we call it “now”, and though it is always now like wherever we
are is always “here”, now can be somewhere else further down the road as
well. Because we cannot visualize time like we can space, it takes longer
to get a handle on that one, conceptually speaking. We can see there from
here. We know there exists there while we exist here. We can in a sense
experience here and there simultaneously almost by seeing them concurrently
within the same frame, or both at once. Time we do not commonly experience
concurrently nor can we see time’s “there”, other times, from time’s “here”,
now. Without the aid of representations such as portraits or film, we cannot
get time’s here and there together side by side to compare them or experience
them simultaneously. Even trying to merge two divergent time streams or
two states of the same existence side by side at different points in the
time of that existence is difficult and dangerous. Times need to be kept
apart, at least for a single object in time. Time’s here and there need
to always be kept apart.
Though
we can never actually get time’s version of here and there together for
a group photograph or, in the ordinary sense, for simultaneous perception,
we do have ways to cheat. As was mentioned previously we can record aspects
of another time, object’s where and how they appeared at that time and
carry forth that record to another new now. We can also record aspects
of that time not visible, such as writing down the temperature at that
moment, or the barometric pressure, and compare that with other times or
days observations and perceptions. And we possess that less accurate but
intrinsic ability of collecting memories which are also needed to recognize
such records externally recorded such as portraits or films as being ourselves
at other times. Without the ability to remember the moments within our
own minds, external records even of our own past becomes just people who
looked as we did doing something.
It is
the act of remembering, a wholly new event requiring more time to experience
that wholly new event, the moment or moments you are reflecting back on
that other time which seems to bring the two different times into the same
focus or frame. Carrying a mental representation of then into now, and
letting how they both compare or seem to match up create a whole new experience,
existing now remembering then. Then instead of carrying just what you are
now forward into the future when you look back on that moment of remembrance,
you instead are carrying both moments, or a composite layer of both moments
into the future. Looking back upon that moment you were looking back to
another moment is to bring them together and in a sense experience them
together as one. You are in a sense remembering remembering something,
and that compounds itself into something new yet is founded or made up
of both previous time periods, the time you remembered and the time you
were remembering that time.
It is
this constant remembering of remembering that provides us with our sense
of where we exist in time, and in that representation of the passage of
time most crucial or critical to us at the moment, the concept or context
of our own lives. What is today, what was yesterday, what was the day before
that. This record is only kept or recorded by compounding remembering remembering.
To know what today is requires knowing what yesterday was. If you forget
what today is or where you stand at the moment, you tend to turn back a
page to yesterday, what was yesterday or what did I do yesterday, to remember.
Or if lost in space momentarily, one automatically thinks back to the last
point they remembered they knew or remembered where they were at that moment.
It is kind of like each moment is a new guest on a talk show where all
the previous guests scoot down the couch in the order they appeared. Each
one takes its turn being the now, then the just before now, then the just
before that, each moving down one seat further down the couch. We see,
watch, and record this new order or imaginary comparison with each new
moment or memory we add and visualize them side by side against the most
recent ones. The mind, consciousness, by the act of creating ever more
new memories or new records of each and every new now, is assigning and
recognizing this order or organizing factor to each new moment it experiences,
pushing the others slightly further down the line in importance. Eventually
they all just kind of fade together the further back from the now you go
if they were similar, simply because room must always be made to record
ever and ever more increasing, and increasingly compounded, new nows often
superimposed or coexisting with remembered thens to compare them with.
Not just remembering remembering, but remembering remembering remembering,
and as long and inclusive as you want to or are capable of making it, or
stringing it together.
Fortunately
now we can write things down, if by fortunate one means one actually wants
to make greater and greater composites of past events for potentially better
understanding and more inclusive and more far reaching comparisons. Sometimes
it is just nicer and easier to forget. Unfortunately even writing things
down has its limitations as an extension of the process of remembering,
and by extension of that the reasoning process, because then one must develop
ever greater archiving schemes to remember where one put the information
one might need or wish to retrieve later for further comparison.
Such
comparisons of any past events, times, states, existences requires new
time, fresh time, to build those new comparisons or new structures of supposed
relationships in. Before extensive and fast retrieving of volumous material
on computers, intelligence was related to how much one could squeeze between
the ears, or remember at one time. That still is the most important aspect
of intelligence, though fading in importance to the processing of such
information. The more data is stored in ones own mind at one moment in
time, the greater the means and chance one can relate it to other data
and form unique contrast and comparisons machines never could because all
of the data, all of the memories, ideas, suppositions are in a sense within
ones mind all potentially linkable and cross-referencable with any others,
occasionally intentionally or unintentionally coming up with unexpected
or intended matches or insights.
The older
we get, the more we are required to remember and the more we wish to remember
of our ever growing pasts, the more clever we must become in organizing
all of this information. The more capable we are of remembering all of
our past moments, the more complex comparisons we can make between them.
Most moments slip into the fog being considered unmemorable, yet each moment
can shed insight into any other. The ability to compare every today with
every yesterday is relatively insignificant the greater numbers you can
add to that. Imagine being able to remember every day for years as clearly
and as completely and as quickly as you remember yesterday. Imagine the
greater insights and comparisons you could make you might not notice from
one day or week to the next. We do possess the means to compare far away
yesterdays with today but they are often faded copies of a copy of a copy,
and far more limiting than that, they are selective. Since we cannot looking
back years remember every day what we did or were doing, we pick and choose
days which stood out from the rest as being different, and single days
can be made or used as representational of other similar days and be confused
one for the other.
I am
not using this analogy to recommend people merely increasing their memory
storage, especially not through bio-implants, but the ability to remember
more and more past times, especially within the context of our own lives,
relates to our notions of what we perceive to be intelligence, especially
when we can make, create, use, or make more uncommon representations of
relationships between all those divergent memories. The greater the reservoir
of things to compare, the more relationships we will discover or, more
accurately, invent. Though this data seems divergent, they all share a
common component, time. What the temperature was the day before, what we
had for lunch, all of this requires a time component ascribed to it. All
the data we record in our minds, books, or computers exists as trying to
capture a moment of time. Even ideas, complex abstractions, to be remembered
means to remember a time when we were thinking of or about them, and use
that as a template to remember it again. Every insignificant piece of data
about whatever we remember is to remember time. Memories are putting time
side by side against time. The more times we can string together is like
seeing further into the distance in the here-versus-there analogy, and
the more details we have about each other when is like having a telescope
or binoculars to see the details more clearly of each other where.
There
is another limitation to the time definition in that it only seems to provide
clear definition or absolute solidity in one direction, looking backwards.
With space one can turn 360 degrees and pick any direction to travel. Though
one is always here, here can seem to be almost anywhere. Though now is
always now, it has to or seeming has to be in a predictable spot a moment
from now, two moments from now, as well as a moment ago, two moments ago,
etc. Where traveling through space can be likened to driving a recreational
vehicle across a flat desert, traveling through time seems more like riding
a train at a set speed on a definite track. You have an idea of where it
will go and what you will see when it gets there, or at least you think
you do. That is where time gets its other footing so to speak. Though all
of our perception of time lies in perceiving a past, something which was
which is no longer the same now, or where something was relative to where
it
is now, we extend that perception into expectations of where and how it
will be in the future. This is to fill in the blank spaces or draw what
we think to be the missing pieces within our minds so that the whole picture
will make sense to us. The more we think that we are doing that correctly,
the more confident we become. The future no longer becomes scary
but controllable, rulable, predictable. The more accurately it matches
what we think it will be, this tells us we are reading it right. The more
often we are wrong, when it does not match up with our expectations, and
we choose not to become delusional or deny what we are experiencing, the
more likely we are to revise how we interpret what we think the future
events or states of things will be. This knowing one half, the past, or
more accurately thinking we know the past because we have some memories
or records of it we assume to be more or less accurate, and guessing or
speculating about the other half we don’t even have invisible clues (memories)
about gives us perspective or added depth to what we are currently experiencing
just as another where gives added perspective or location to place our
current here within the context of, or how having other beings provides
us with definition, comparisons, and contrasts to measure against or define
a perspective in relation to them, for knowing what it is or means to be
ourselves.
It seems
“where” is fairly easy to grasp as I said before because we literally can
see and do place different places side by side concurrently. And it does
seem that time is harder to grasp than space or place because it is invisible,
cannot put it side by side, can only speculate about its more mysterious
and changeable other half (the future), we can only see its effects or
the effects it has on the “whats” like one can only see the wind when it
is blowing leaves, flags, sand, or other objects. Since time seems fairly
difficult to grasp, why then do I state that the “what” of the what, where,
and when triad is by far the most difficult of all to understand? The “whats”
of existence are literally easy to grasp but like understanding what it
means to be oneself, “what” is far more complicated to understand on anything
other than the most superficial of levels without looking at it from other
angles or perspectives of other existences or other ways to be. “What”
seems of paramount importance. It is far easier to understand that neither
time nor space could exist without first having a “what” to occupy them,
than for time or space to be thought occupy that pivotal lead role. Yet
“what” like space relying forever on a “where else” to place its “here”
into context, and time always needing two opposing “thens” to bookend its
“now”, “what” is nothing without a “what else”.
One could
go the easy route of disputing this, that one can have a “what” without
being defined by a “what else”. Surely one might say one could have one
thing in the universe and space and time could still exist. So you have
one thing in space and nothing else. Without another thing in space, there
is no other there. The entire width of the universe would be the width
of that one thing. If one were to make the thing hollow to create space
within it, one is in a sense dividing it into separate things. If you have
some parts of the thing different shapes, you have in a sense different
things and not one thing. Though you can still call it one thing, it still
can be seen or called a collection of different things since it is not
uniform throughout. Now go against that and speculate that it can be a
perfect sphere, therefore though the universe would end at its borders,
it can create space inside itself by expanding. Though a perfect sphere
can seem to be uniform throughout and create a sense of space within itself,
it would create two distinct states , perspectives, or aspects of its own
existence. It must have an interior edge and an exterior edge, one curving
inward and one curving outward, two sides. So a coin can still be a coin
though it possesses two sides, one might say. I am not disputing that a
coin cannot have two sides, nor a sphere, but that you cannot have a what
without creating a what else to define it, or to have space and time. Once
you enlarge the sphere to create space, you create two polar opposites,
an inside curving inward and an outside curving opposite. Two aspects,
two ways to define what exists, two opposite aspects of existence, a what
and a what else.
On the
other aspect of the premise that you cannot have a what without a what
else to define its existence or it cannot exist in space and in time, that
one can still have one thing inseparable in all the universe and still
have time for it to exist within, I will now address. If one said you could
have one thing and still have time, the moment that one thing becomes something
else or changes in any way you still would have a what and a what else,
what it was before and what it became after. My original point is that
every what requires a what else to define its existence by, and that just
as you can have no now without a then, and no here without a there, you
can not have a what without a what else to define it by.
For some,
they may not even need convincing. Surely what we are now requires many
what elses. We require air to breathe, food to eat, others to reproduce
and sustain a population. Surely we require lots and lots of what elses.
That no one would dispute, yet our concrete view of the “whats” in our
environment can seem to make it seem illogical to think that every single
“what” we perceive requires a “what else” or it does not exist, yet that
is exactly the case. Every single thing in the universe requires some other
thing, or some differing aspect of itself in the case of a hollow uniform
sphere, or some post/previous state, something else to give it any existence
whatsoever. We can readily understand we need other things or beings to
give ourselves relevance, but again I going beyond us and purpose and living
things. That is that nothing exists in the universe without a what else,
and that what else is at that moment everything else it is not, or appears
not to be, or to be different than. The what/what else is as necessary
as the here versus there and the now versus then. Each only exists as a
contrast to the other. Each requires the existence of the other. The three
concepts, what, where, and when, and their six halves, here/there, now/then,
what/what else, combined sustain all of existence, or more definitively,
the perception of existence.
So if
every single “what” in existence has no existence without some or every
other “what else” to not only confirm its existence in the relational sense,
but to actually create its physical existence as bound and integral to
each others existences as the “now” is to requiring other times to place
itself within or between, and “here” is to requiring other “theres” to
place itself within, what does this mean to perception or interpretation?
It means for those who consider it a truth or an axiom whatever they wish
for it to mean. It does mean that in the simplest sense you cannot have
one without the other, or that they are each two sides of the same coin,
or two inseparable aspects of the same aspect of existence.
Again I will
point out that not many really have cause to to dispute this. As living
beings we cannot exist independently of other living and non-living things
to help sustain our existences. Why keep stressing the interconnectedness
of all things one might think? The reason is because this point is easily
lost. I am not talking about all “whats” being related to or in relationship
to each other or being dependent upon each other. Each “what” is quite
literally defined and created by the “what else”. What is is what
it is to you. You are defining it and creating it as much as it is defining
and creating itself.
The best
analogy I can think of is a very old one. What anything is is like a spoke
in a wagon wheel, or for anyone who never saw a wagon but have seen bicycles,
a bicycle wheel. The spoke is what it is, but what that is requires the
presence of the other spokes and the wheel in which to turn within. Nothing
in the universe is a whole wheel, nor a wagon, nor a bicycle by itself.
Everything is a spoke in the same wheel, or each is a spoke in everything
else’s wheels depending on how you wish to view it.
This
is why what something is can be viewed as far more complicated than either
where it is or when it is. Changing what something is or changing the “what”
of something is only possible by really understanding how what something
is is defined by everything else. Changing it happens in conjunction or
in agreement with everything else that is. These agreements seem to follow
rules, preset limitations or methods for things to gradually become something
else they are not, or seem not, now. Some would call them Laws of Nature.
However like time seeming to stretch predictably in some fashion into the
future by the way or direction it seems to be heading from the past to
the present, how something becomes something else or what it is not follows
expectations in accordance and in line with its presumed past direction
and heading, and those seemingly involutable Laws of Nature are similar
roads of expectation we impose upon the world or our perceptions of it
for it to make sense to us, or at least to make more sense to us, as much
as it does or might.
Infinity is finite and randomness predictable,
An infinity
loop is a term I apply to anything large enough to cast a shadow back upon
itself or become a paradox. The three aspects I hold to require or sustain
or describe existence each have their own similar infinity loops matching
their descriptions or representations of reality.
A spacial
infinity loop is simply curved space. Imagine sailing west so long that
you sail completely around the World and end up right where you started.
By believing that three dimensional space can be curved through one or
more additional dimensions we cannot visualize or easily comprehend, like
the two dimensional ocean plane through a third dimension of height tilting
slightly downward until it goes all the way back around itself, by thinking
that three dimensional space can be similarly curved back upon itself one
can imagine a similar occurrence. That occurrence being that one might
be able to head off in a rocket ship in any direction, leave the solar
system, the galaxy, and so on always traveling in the same direction and
return from the opposite direction to where one began. Since I have not
mentioned space/time, this is fairly easy to comprehend. If one imagines
one could travel through such a curved spacial infinity loop without taking
into account how time would be affected, and if there were time enough
lying forward into the future to complete the circuit, one could fairly
easily conceive of such a journey.
The paradox
of infinity loops is best understood by the idea of threading them. Since
they are at least by my definition also infinite, one cannot actually thread
them but the ideas are best understood and explained by the concept. Imagine
the old story of leaving a trail of breadcrumbs behind you so you don’t
get lost in the woods, or a thread. If one had enough breadcrumbs or a
long enough thread, as one completes a trip around the world or through
curved space one would eventually not need anymore because one would eventually
come back to where one began and the previous breadcrumb trail or thread
would still exist and could be tied or joined together. Though a tread
could conceivably exist tens of thousands of miles long, long enough to
reach around the Earth, no thread could be made to reach through curved
space from one end of the Universe reaching back around itself through
curved space so as to be able to be tied together, not solely because the
thread would have to be astronomically long, but because time would be
affected. Curved three dimensional space is not the same as curved two
dimensional space where each end of the thread can exist simultaneously
in the same timeframe. To travel from one end of the universe back to where
one began requires a curve through time as well as any other dimension
needed to bridge the gap to complete the circuit and the first end of the
string could not exist within the timeframe or reality of the other end
as a string around the Earth could.
It ends for now here. I have begun
working on a few short stories illustrating some of the principles of the
other sections. I am thinking of releasing them as Shadows
of Time Roads. The largest by far is 2D,
3D, 4D, and 5D Thinking Made Simple (Transdimensional or Intradimensional
Relationships). It was written to sort out some of the principles of
Part 4: The Million Floor Department Store: Visualizing Trinary Space/Time/Existence,
but it deals with other sections to a lesser degree as well. Another is
Alien
Abduction and the Schrodinger Security Gaurd. The third is
Paradoxes
and Probability Waves. If released you can find it where ever you found
this under Time Roads or Shadows of Time
Roads..
Preview within a preview
2D, 3D, 4D, and 5D Thinking
(Transdimensional or Intradimensional Relationships) "Space is omnidimensional and objects dimensions are scaleable." -Researcher based on the ideas of Inventor The following is a short story of many dimensions <g>. It explains interrelationships of multiple dimensional states with humor and with characters without names. It has many good jokes, and some really good ones at Physicists expense. It also has an amusement park ride through the weird world inside matter. It is both very smart and fun, making some ways of looking at different dimensional states easy enough for absolutely anyone to understand, yet goes well beyond many known reference points as well, including that if all matter is positive inside (as having existence), time and space which begins only outside itself is a reflection in relationship to that weird inner world. Enjoy. |