Does anyone think it's possible that there may actually be a time particle? a particle that we have not yet discovered\detected. I have no proof that such a particle exists and am not saying that one does but I am not ruling the possibility out either. It would make things much easier if we could identify such a particle. If such a particle did exist then I would think that it is made up of three components past, present and future. I wonder if the particle could be smashed in an particle accelerator. I'd love to see that! I dunno, just something I was thinking about and thought I'd share it.
Time Particle
- Thread starter 1stBorn
- Start date
Inevitability
Temporal Novice
it took a big bang to make time move in the direction we know, it created living organisms planets stars and so forth. a time partice may have been made or there might be a kind of dna of the universe which defines all laws which once mapped finds a strand that defines time ur particle say, is an interesting idea.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Hi There, 1stBorn:
Personally, I think we live in the last days of mechanical, reductionist approaches to science. You will note in my descriptions of Massive SpaceTime how I use the words "field" and "integrated". It is my belief that Mass, Space, and Time are actually individual field-effects that we perceive through our senses. The total integration of these 3 fields is Energy (scientifically defined as an integrated mixture of Mass, Space, and Time!). I believe the "new focus" for science will be in understanding that these 3 fundamental units are, indeed, orthogonal field effects (and, with all the modesty I can muster, we will also understand that Mass and Time are just as vectorized as Space). Once "mainstream" science reaches this level, we will shift from "seeking out the next smaller particles" and instead shift to trying to understand how these fields integrate, and interrelate, thereby generating the field effects we perceive as the separate manifestations of Energy.
Again, I would point to understandings that come from systems theory and systems engineering: Emergent properties of systems are "more than the sum of their parts". You cannot point to a specific piece of the body that is "responsible" for human intelligence. Intelligence is am emergent property of the human animal. It is not a "particle" within us.
But this is just my thinking....sometimes supported by others, sometimes not.
RainmanTime
Roel floated this concept awhile back...perhaps not too long after I began introducing my Massive SpaceTime model. I'm sure he will jump into this discussion.
Here's my take on it...and it may also give more background info on where I am going with Massive SpaceTime. I do not think it would make things easier. In fact, I think it would make things harder. The reason I feel this way is because "identifying particles" is just a means of reductionist view on the universe. So far, it has caused more questions than it has answered. For example, what did the "discovery" of the atom really buy us in terms of answering big questions? Few. In fact, all it lead to was "so what are atoms made up of?" That lead to the answer "protons, neutrons, and electrons." Of course, that lead to "so what are THEY made up of?" When we began to answer that question, all of a sudden quantum theory REALLY threw a monkey wrench into the well-oiled machine!
Personally, I think we live in the last days of mechanical, reductionist approaches to science. You will note in my descriptions of Massive SpaceTime how I use the words "field" and "integrated". It is my belief that Mass, Space, and Time are actually individual field-effects that we perceive through our senses. The total integration of these 3 fields is Energy (scientifically defined as an integrated mixture of Mass, Space, and Time!). I believe the "new focus" for science will be in understanding that these 3 fundamental units are, indeed, orthogonal field effects (and, with all the modesty I can muster, we will also understand that Mass and Time are just as vectorized as Space). Once "mainstream" science reaches this level, we will shift from "seeking out the next smaller particles" and instead shift to trying to understand how these fields integrate, and interrelate, thereby generating the field effects we perceive as the separate manifestations of Energy.
Again, I would point to understandings that come from systems theory and systems engineering: Emergent properties of systems are "more than the sum of their parts". You cannot point to a specific piece of the body that is "responsible" for human intelligence. Intelligence is am emergent property of the human animal. It is not a "particle" within us.
But this is just my thinking....sometimes supported by others, sometimes not.
RainmanTime
Hey Ray,
I do agree with you and I really enjoy reading your posts regarding the massive timespace, It makes sense. you said, "Personally, I think we live in the last days of mechanical, reductionist approaches to science." I have been thinking about that a lot lately and hope to witness the end of ordinary time. I actually have a $500 bet going with a buddy that man kinds perception of time and the universe as a whole will significantly change over the next 15 years, I hope I'm right. I was thinking about the time particle theory a little bit in conjunction with the hallographic universe theory and your massive timespace theory and it has reall cooked my noodle to say the least. While I don't really believe that a time particle exists, it's still fun to flirt with the idea of a time particle. I understand that even if it were discovered it would make the mystery deeper and I can not dispute the fact that emergent properties of systems are obviously "more than the sum of their parts".
Roel, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the time particle theory, none the less.
Regards,
1stBorn
I do agree with you and I really enjoy reading your posts regarding the massive timespace, It makes sense. you said, "Personally, I think we live in the last days of mechanical, reductionist approaches to science." I have been thinking about that a lot lately and hope to witness the end of ordinary time. I actually have a $500 bet going with a buddy that man kinds perception of time and the universe as a whole will significantly change over the next 15 years, I hope I'm right. I was thinking about the time particle theory a little bit in conjunction with the hallographic universe theory and your massive timespace theory and it has reall cooked my noodle to say the least. While I don't really believe that a time particle exists, it's still fun to flirt with the idea of a time particle. I understand that even if it were discovered it would make the mystery deeper and I can not dispute the fact that emergent properties of systems are obviously "more than the sum of their parts".
Roel, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the time particle theory, none the less.
Regards,
1stBorn
Roel van Houten
Quantum Scribe
How'd you guess?
Unfortunately my knowledge of the quantum theory is inadequate to really put a finger on this, but after some Googling I found out about the Bohr model. I assume that this is (part of) what you were referring to when you were saying that quantum theory "threw a monkeywrench in the well-oiled machine", or am I missing another "monkeywrench" (which is very well possible, given my limited scienceskills)? Instead of digging myself deeper and deeper into an infinite hole of scientific inconsistancies and misconceptions I'll approach it from a slightly more philosophical point of view. Please excuse my ignorance when it comes to scientific facts.
I've learned two basic things about quantum theory... the uncertainty principle and the fact that all particles are waves. My theory was that the smallest particle of matter is in fact time. In my opinion this complements, or rather fits in the quantum theory.
1) Although we are able to measure time in a conventional manner, it does not have a position and a momentum which you can measure adequately. This means that the uncertainty principle is applicable on time, when you think of it as a particle.
2) A wave, in my opinion, is an excellent way of looking at time. So when quantum theory tells us that particles are in fact waves, this makes perfect sense.
I'm still having difficulties to formulate how I see my theory as part of your Massive Spacetime model. I see time as the key to a solution. Think of it this way: Time is essential for changes and movement in space. The difference between an object standing on position x and the same object standing on position x+1 is time. Time made the object move. Just like time would make an object grow, shrink, fall or even disintegrate. But not only that. Everything consists of time. The wavelength of a timeparticle defines the state, shape and momentum of any object.
So in a way you are right when you say that everything is "an illusion". Everything is time. Or when we consider your sea of energy: everything is energy, with time being its smallest "particle".
So to answer your question 1stBorn...
I say yes.
Ray... For your thinking to be compatible with my thinking requires a little bending, but as long as nothing breaks, I think we're on the same wavelength
Roel
(geesh 1:06 am... please somebody warn me next time
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Hi Roel:
The oldest form of time measurements are movements of the heavenly bodies (masses) through space. Whether it be the sophisticated star-tracking of the Mayans, or the simple concept of the sundial, the passage of Time is measured by some element of Matter which is in Motion. (Recall also, that my definitions of Matter is Mass per unit Time, and Motion (velocity) is patently defined as Space per unit Time). Then came the clockwork precision of granfather clocks and Swiss watches. What are these devices but a mass of gears, pulleys, pendulums....all MOVING? Finally, we settled on a standard definition of a second, which is based on the regularity of cesium radiation emissions. Cesium is a specific form of Matter, and its radiation emissions represent the motion of this specific form of Mass.
This is why I shy away from defining more "particles" as defining Time. Partly because the definition of "particles" has not really lead us to the kinds of physics breakthroughs that we would expect of a unified view of reality. But also because of the description above, it seems obvious that the perceived passage of Time results from Matter in Motion. Take away either one, and you lose the ability to tell Time. Posit that all motion in the universe STOPS. How would you tell time? Also, you could posit that you are all alone in the darkness of Space, with NO other Mass around you as far as your eyes can see... how would you know how to tell the passage of Time?
This is why I believe the great advancements in physics that are ahead of us will come from understanding field effects, especially how the field effects of Mass, Space, and Time integrate with one another to create exhibitions of Energy.
I just think there is a lot more empirical evidence, all around us, that ALL elements of reality (Mass, Space, and Time) are fields, and the phenomenon they define are the result of field interactions. And this theory would certainly DIRECTLY lead to our current understandings of both Electromagnetism and Gravity as also being field effects. So, while you may indeed be proven "right" that there is such a thing as a Time particle, it would seem to me there is another explanation (integrated field effects) that can already explain physical reaity, without the need to define any "new" form of discrete particles. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
These are the elements of Quantum Theory that I was referring to as "throwing a monkey wrench into the well-oiled machine." It was the first indication that the clockwork, reductionist approach to understanding reality was not a very good one....and yet, we are still smashing atoms looking for the next smaller particle, that will only last for nanoseconds!
OK, I'm not bashing your theory here. I just want to point out something that I have pointed out on my website about the common thread in all the ways we measure time. So far, I have yet to have anyone come back to me and say "naaaaa, that's all wrong." In fact, just the other day, while mentoring a younger engineer, I mentioned that "Time is defined as Matter in Motion" and her eyes lit up and she said "I never thought about it that way, but it's true." Here's the details:
The oldest form of time measurements are movements of the heavenly bodies (masses) through space. Whether it be the sophisticated star-tracking of the Mayans, or the simple concept of the sundial, the passage of Time is measured by some element of Matter which is in Motion. (Recall also, that my definitions of Matter is Mass per unit Time, and Motion (velocity) is patently defined as Space per unit Time). Then came the clockwork precision of granfather clocks and Swiss watches. What are these devices but a mass of gears, pulleys, pendulums....all MOVING? Finally, we settled on a standard definition of a second, which is based on the regularity of cesium radiation emissions. Cesium is a specific form of Matter, and its radiation emissions represent the motion of this specific form of Mass.
This is why I shy away from defining more "particles" as defining Time. Partly because the definition of "particles" has not really lead us to the kinds of physics breakthroughs that we would expect of a unified view of reality. But also because of the description above, it seems obvious that the perceived passage of Time results from Matter in Motion. Take away either one, and you lose the ability to tell Time. Posit that all motion in the universe STOPS. How would you tell time? Also, you could posit that you are all alone in the darkness of Space, with NO other Mass around you as far as your eyes can see... how would you know how to tell the passage of Time?
This is why I believe the great advancements in physics that are ahead of us will come from understanding field effects, especially how the field effects of Mass, Space, and Time integrate with one another to create exhibitions of Energy.
Oh I don't doubt that for a minute. But I am just a bit "down" on reductionist/particle approaches, mostly because I do not see huge amounts of evidence that they have lead to major breakthrus. And if you define a Time particle, to go with existing theories of Mass particles (still not resolved with quantum theory), then why not also define a Space particle? Space is the one thing that we can clearly observe as being a continuum, or a field. This is, indeed, the realization that gave-way to the understanding of a vector and 3-D Space.
I just think there is a lot more empirical evidence, all around us, that ALL elements of reality (Mass, Space, and Time) are fields, and the phenomenon they define are the result of field interactions. And this theory would certainly DIRECTLY lead to our current understandings of both Electromagnetism and Gravity as also being field effects. So, while you may indeed be proven "right" that there is such a thing as a Time particle, it would seem to me there is another explanation (integrated field effects) that can already explain physical reaity, without the need to define any "new" form of discrete particles. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
Roel van Houten
Quantum Scribe
Not anymore, since I've just defined the smallest particle... the timeparticle
But seriously. I understand what you mean and I agree with you to a certain extent. However, I don't think science is ONLY about revolutions. You mentioned in another post that "nature repeats itself". There's a pattern in how things are constructed, almost like a fractal. Unlike a fractal, nature - and our universe for that matter - doesn't have infinite iterations according to my theory. A timeparticle can not be subdivided. Therefore I don't think my theory can be filed under "Reductionist/particle approaches". On the contrary!
Also, all this time we've been discussing time as the smallest particle. Since particles are actually waves, perhaps we should just leave timeparticles for what they are and call them timewaves.
So why not merge the theories and allow my timewaves to be part of your field effects /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
It's only a small step from waves to fields. (click) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif What I'm trying to say is that instead of reducing the number of possible solutions, perhaps it's better to try combining them. I still believe that both our theories can go hand in hand.
Well, actually I was looking for a particle that could make the bridge between the multiple dimensions of your model. A timeparticle, or timewave does exactly that... or at least, I think it does (with my limited scientific capabilities).
I'm a bit tired, so this post might be a bit superficial. I hope you can read between the lines what I'm trying to say /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Roel out...
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Good Morning, Roel! (Afternoon where you are)
MATTER is a relationship, not really a "thing" in and of itself. MATTER is the relationship between Mass and Time. Your body is MATTER in the fact that it is never composed of exactly the same Mass over given periods of Time. You take in new Mass and you expel old Mass. All elements of MATTER are the same way, even things we do not consider to be living. For example, rocks and mountains erode Mass due to wind and water. Riverbeds absorb Mass as a result of eroded deposits of silt. Inertia (which is similar to mass flow rate of a fluid) is the primary characteristic that we use to quantify MATTER.
MOTION is also a relationship. It relates Space to Time. Just like intertia is the primary characteristic of MATTER, relative velocity is the primary characteristic of MOTION (e.g. meters per second).
TENSE is the final relationship, and it relates Mass to Space. Density is the primary characteristic that describes the relationship of TENSE. This also plays directly into gravity concepts, and relates to how Einstein described that the more dense some object is, the more it warps spacetime.
Relationships are the key to Relativity, and so they must also be the key to physicality and the Massive SpaceTime Matrix! Are you with me here?
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
This sounds a bit contradictory, but maybe I don't "get" what you are saying. I agree that nature exhibits fractal organization all over the place. But then you say your theory does not support that?
Historical results from scientific evolution would imply that this road is a dead-end. The same sort of statement was made when the electron, proton, and neutron were identified. Many thought "that's it....these are the smallest elements of matter. They can't be subdivided." So, I am just cautioning you that history would place your statement on shaky ground. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Perhaps they are BOTH? We already know that light exhibits itself in a duality of modes: Particle (photon) and Wave. I would suggest (for no other reason than that I believe Mass, Space, and Time exhibit common, fractal structures) that Time can exhibit itself as both particle and wave. But I still cannot quite "arrive" at a conclusion that Mass and Space are composed of Time particles or waves. I still believe these primary dimensions are orthogonal to each other.
I'm trying. But I still have a problem with non-orthogonality of how you define Time as the smallest element of Mass and Space. It's the engineer in me....it just does not "fit" other systems we see in nature... but our continued discussions are helping me understand where you are coming from, and perhaps I can shed more light on my approach...such as:
Ahhhhhhhhh! (Light bulb goes on in Rainman's head) :D . Now I see your issue! The "bridge" you are looking for between the Massive SpaceTime dimensions is the concept of RELATIONSHIPS, and this is well-founded in the basic precepts of Relativity! Indeed, relationships are the fundamental aspect of our human social systems. So now let's see if I can help you understand the bridge relationships of the Massive SpaceTime model:
MATTER is a relationship, not really a "thing" in and of itself. MATTER is the relationship between Mass and Time. Your body is MATTER in the fact that it is never composed of exactly the same Mass over given periods of Time. You take in new Mass and you expel old Mass. All elements of MATTER are the same way, even things we do not consider to be living. For example, rocks and mountains erode Mass due to wind and water. Riverbeds absorb Mass as a result of eroded deposits of silt. Inertia (which is similar to mass flow rate of a fluid) is the primary characteristic that we use to quantify MATTER.
MOTION is also a relationship. It relates Space to Time. Just like intertia is the primary characteristic of MATTER, relative velocity is the primary characteristic of MOTION (e.g. meters per second).
TENSE is the final relationship, and it relates Mass to Space. Density is the primary characteristic that describes the relationship of TENSE. This also plays directly into gravity concepts, and relates to how Einstein described that the more dense some object is, the more it warps spacetime.
Relationships are the key to Relativity, and so they must also be the key to physicality and the Massive SpaceTime Matrix! Are you with me here?
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
Roel van Houten
Quantum Scribe
Goodevening, or goodafternoon... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
My theory does support the fact that nature exhibits fractal organization. However, defining time as the smallest particle means that the number of iterations is not infinite. So it's not really contradictory.
Isn't science all about trial and error? I don't see why - in this case - previous statements would render my theory obsolete or even incorrect.
I'm going to give it some thought... I've been staring at this post for hours, but I need some time to think things over. It's just like making a painting; sometimes you need to take a distance to look at it for a while. I'll get back to you on this.
Roel
My theory does support the fact that nature exhibits fractal organization. However, defining time as the smallest particle means that the number of iterations is not infinite. So it's not really contradictory.
Isn't science all about trial and error? I don't see why - in this case - previous statements would render my theory obsolete or even incorrect.
I'm going to give it some thought... I've been staring at this post for hours, but I need some time to think things over. It's just like making a painting; sometimes you need to take a distance to look at it for a while. I'll get back to you on this.
Roel
time_soldier00
Temporal Novice
Have you ever thought that all these particles and subparticles may all be part of the same thing, called a "swivel" and that all these different particles are just variations of its angles...
If you find the point in time and space that you wish to go to and computate the right angles and invert it... it should provoke the alteration in matter and take you back.
If you find the point in time and space that you wish to go to and computate the right angles and invert it... it should provoke the alteration in matter and take you back.
zerubbabel
Chrono Cadet
Hey Roel and Rainman
Don't let this thread die now! It was just starting to get really interesting. To add to the mix, maybe I can add a couple items that might be relevant to the discussion. Quite a few years ago I saw a program on PBS called "Creation of the Universe". Many of the top Physicists and Cosmologists had their say (profoundly, I might add) about the creation of the universe and their understanding of it to 10 to the minus 43 seconds of the "big bang". The thing that struck me the most was the simple graphics exhibiting the absolute minimum that would be necessary to "construct the universe--three simple points. It took a minimum of three separate points (not necessarily occupying the same space and time) to weave matter and space time into the universe that we know today. This was at the most basic of levels. In a very real sense, this was a time-mass-space particle as they set up the most fundamental building blocks. Now picture this happening at equidistant points in space/mass/time and each three-point system weaving its own separate but connected structure that eventually connected with every other three-point system. This was not an evolutionary process but an integrative one in that every three-point system simultaneously arose throughout the universe and continues still--expanding the universe ever outward. It would take consideration of all three to properly map our way to the correct "points" in space/mass/time.
Now, these three points were not just standing still and circling one another to create a symmetrical object/space. Each was spinning and moving through space. Strictly speaking, according to this scenario, there is no such thing as a straight line. Every point in space/time/mass is curved--even though our senses seem to tell us differently. Reason would tell us that radiation travels in a straight line in the vacuum of space yet, in reality, it is traveling through a multitude of curvilinear directions at once. Only our observation tells us different. The zero-point energy that we see emerge and disappear in quantum physics is the only way that we can perceive this interaction. I believe that this is the only "place" where we will be able to map the cosmos. It will take a quantum computer to enable us to do this and literally "travel" upon light like a wild bucking bronco. As Cat once mentioned in another post, it will take VR and quantum computing to properly map inner space before we can venture out into outer space. If we can find the proper space/mass/time routes, I believe we can revisit our own planet at any point in time or space, but we will only be able to observe since we would be like ghosts traveling upon light--seemingly emerging and disappearing like zero-point energy.
Once we have properly mapped inner space, we can then think about traveling outward in space since the same properties apply but on an inverse-square relationship. It boggles me thinking of all complexities involved, but what the mind can perceive--it can achieve. Of course, traveling outward would also make us "ethereal" since we would have to achieve light speed before entering the "rivers of space" that would take us backward or forward to this "localized" area of space/time/mass. Maybe we will find ourselves among many others that have visited-are visiting-will visit this area of space/time/mass. Any thoughts?
Don't let this thread die now! It was just starting to get really interesting. To add to the mix, maybe I can add a couple items that might be relevant to the discussion. Quite a few years ago I saw a program on PBS called "Creation of the Universe". Many of the top Physicists and Cosmologists had their say (profoundly, I might add) about the creation of the universe and their understanding of it to 10 to the minus 43 seconds of the "big bang". The thing that struck me the most was the simple graphics exhibiting the absolute minimum that would be necessary to "construct the universe--three simple points. It took a minimum of three separate points (not necessarily occupying the same space and time) to weave matter and space time into the universe that we know today. This was at the most basic of levels. In a very real sense, this was a time-mass-space particle as they set up the most fundamental building blocks. Now picture this happening at equidistant points in space/mass/time and each three-point system weaving its own separate but connected structure that eventually connected with every other three-point system. This was not an evolutionary process but an integrative one in that every three-point system simultaneously arose throughout the universe and continues still--expanding the universe ever outward. It would take consideration of all three to properly map our way to the correct "points" in space/mass/time.
Now, these three points were not just standing still and circling one another to create a symmetrical object/space. Each was spinning and moving through space. Strictly speaking, according to this scenario, there is no such thing as a straight line. Every point in space/time/mass is curved--even though our senses seem to tell us differently. Reason would tell us that radiation travels in a straight line in the vacuum of space yet, in reality, it is traveling through a multitude of curvilinear directions at once. Only our observation tells us different. The zero-point energy that we see emerge and disappear in quantum physics is the only way that we can perceive this interaction. I believe that this is the only "place" where we will be able to map the cosmos. It will take a quantum computer to enable us to do this and literally "travel" upon light like a wild bucking bronco. As Cat once mentioned in another post, it will take VR and quantum computing to properly map inner space before we can venture out into outer space. If we can find the proper space/mass/time routes, I believe we can revisit our own planet at any point in time or space, but we will only be able to observe since we would be like ghosts traveling upon light--seemingly emerging and disappearing like zero-point energy.
Once we have properly mapped inner space, we can then think about traveling outward in space since the same properties apply but on an inverse-square relationship. It boggles me thinking of all complexities involved, but what the mind can perceive--it can achieve. Of course, traveling outward would also make us "ethereal" since we would have to achieve light speed before entering the "rivers of space" that would take us backward or forward to this "localized" area of space/time/mass. Maybe we will find ourselves among many others that have visited-are visiting-will visit this area of space/time/mass. Any thoughts?
Roel van Houten
Quantum Scribe
I wasn't planning to /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif It's pretty complex matter to discuss, so I was giving my poor head a rest. I'll be posting on this thread again when I have some fresh ideas. Right now Ray and I are in somekind of impasse. I hope I'll be able to further elaborate on my theory with some good arguments.
Roel
I haven't read this entire thread, and I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the possible existence of *any* particle. However, I do want to respond to your comment about the "reductionist" view in science, and your belief that it dominates current thinking.
I consider myself to be an empiricist, and while not strictly a reductionist, I have found that approach to be very instrumental in understanding many of the topics I have researched. A model of one of the views I've employed could be crudely summed up as:
Sociology as a science describes behaviors and phenomenological events within human groups.
(Social) Psychology describes anological phenomena in individuals within those groups.
Psychology (Cognitive, Behavioral) describes events and processes within individuals, and relate them to the exogenous world.
(Neuro/Bio)Psychology examines structures and systems within organisms, and relates them to higher cognitive and behavioral funtions.
Biology examines the mechanisms and properties of how these srtuctures and systems work, as well providing the constructs developed by microbiology.
Chemistry examinse and describes how these structures and systems function on a molecular level, and is primarily important for understanding how these "building" blocks interact.
(Ultimately?) we can break it down to Physics, or hopefully someday- some kind of Grand Unifying Theory...
Now the point I want to make here is that in my taxonomy, we go travel in orders of magnitude from abstract to concrete. You can, theoretically reduce the behavior of, say, the Democratic National Committee, to physics... but what does that tell you? Not much.
Yes my model can be understood as reductionist, but that's not a completely fair appraisal. What kind of data you are looking for determines how far down the reductionist line you want to go. If I want to understand why an organism behaves a certain way when presented with a certain stimulus, I'm certainly NOT going to start by looking at organelles. I'm going to observe it's behavior. Once I have that pretty much nailed down... I *might* want to continue further down the line. If, on the otherhand, I want to know why and how amphetamine psychosis leads to agression, I'm gonna start lopping the heads off of rats and dropping stains.
I guess my point here is that in science, you use the right tool for the right job. As a scientist, you have a responsibilty to know your own limitations, and the limitations of your experimental paradigm. A Gestalt approach is usefull, but sometimes it's just something that you have to keep in the back of your mind. Other times, it should be the driving force behind your research.
Ok... enough metaphysical waxing for now.
I consider myself to be an empiricist, and while not strictly a reductionist, I have found that approach to be very instrumental in understanding many of the topics I have researched. A model of one of the views I've employed could be crudely summed up as:
Sociology as a science describes behaviors and phenomenological events within human groups.
(Social) Psychology describes anological phenomena in individuals within those groups.
Psychology (Cognitive, Behavioral) describes events and processes within individuals, and relate them to the exogenous world.
(Neuro/Bio)Psychology examines structures and systems within organisms, and relates them to higher cognitive and behavioral funtions.
Biology examines the mechanisms and properties of how these srtuctures and systems work, as well providing the constructs developed by microbiology.
Chemistry examinse and describes how these structures and systems function on a molecular level, and is primarily important for understanding how these "building" blocks interact.
(Ultimately?) we can break it down to Physics, or hopefully someday- some kind of Grand Unifying Theory...
Now the point I want to make here is that in my taxonomy, we go travel in orders of magnitude from abstract to concrete. You can, theoretically reduce the behavior of, say, the Democratic National Committee, to physics... but what does that tell you? Not much.
Yes my model can be understood as reductionist, but that's not a completely fair appraisal. What kind of data you are looking for determines how far down the reductionist line you want to go. If I want to understand why an organism behaves a certain way when presented with a certain stimulus, I'm certainly NOT going to start by looking at organelles. I'm going to observe it's behavior. Once I have that pretty much nailed down... I *might* want to continue further down the line. If, on the otherhand, I want to know why and how amphetamine psychosis leads to agression, I'm gonna start lopping the heads off of rats and dropping stains.
I guess my point here is that in science, you use the right tool for the right job. As a scientist, you have a responsibilty to know your own limitations, and the limitations of your experimental paradigm. A Gestalt approach is usefull, but sometimes it's just something that you have to keep in the back of your mind. Other times, it should be the driving force behind your research.
Ok... enough metaphysical waxing for now.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
No impasse at all! I've just been experiencing a NASTY internet attack on my home system! My home computer is completely offline. But, on the good side, this has given me a good reason to set up my own WIFI switch and router so I can roam with my laptop...another level of security never hurts!
I'll be back with more comments to other's posts once a few other things are tidyed-up,
RainmanTime
zerubbabel
Chrono Cadet
Here's another thing to consider:
The most recent discoveries regarding the massive black hole at the center of our galaxy implies very strongly that black holes in general are not the result of stars imploding but were present at the birth of the universe itself and the creation of galaxy structures. Evidence suggests that every galaxy has its own massive black hole that existed before matter formation even began. Recent studies on the properties of space suggest, also, that matter is insignificant in the scheme of things. It would seem that "nothing" indeed created "everything". I would certainly enjoy seeing "reason" explaining this phenomenon. Modern cosmologists now realize that an entirely different physics is necessary to explain how this could occur. They are at a loss as to what this new "system" would even look like.
A recent thesis that I read about the nature of space within the event horizon of a singularity suggests that there is ample evidence of "energy" contained within the fluctuations of space to produce the necessary energy that some are saying would necessitate there being "dark matter" or "dark energy" to account for the present structure of the universe. There is also implication that the effects of a massive black hole would produce the opposite effect of its own light devouring singularity. In other words, it produces a "push" rather than a pull on the outer reaches of its dominion. We are on the edge of a brand new paradigm that may give us the answers as to what constitutes space/time/matter. This is exciting new stuff. The recent launch of a major experiment to confirm Einstein's theories using the most perfect spheres ever made to test "frame dragging" could give us some of the empirical evidence we need to start developing the "new physics". No theory is sacrosanct. Time or space "particles" may not be so far fetched after all. The "swivel" theory mentioned in this thread may hold a great deal more meaning than we think.
The most recent discoveries regarding the massive black hole at the center of our galaxy implies very strongly that black holes in general are not the result of stars imploding but were present at the birth of the universe itself and the creation of galaxy structures. Evidence suggests that every galaxy has its own massive black hole that existed before matter formation even began. Recent studies on the properties of space suggest, also, that matter is insignificant in the scheme of things. It would seem that "nothing" indeed created "everything". I would certainly enjoy seeing "reason" explaining this phenomenon. Modern cosmologists now realize that an entirely different physics is necessary to explain how this could occur. They are at a loss as to what this new "system" would even look like.
A recent thesis that I read about the nature of space within the event horizon of a singularity suggests that there is ample evidence of "energy" contained within the fluctuations of space to produce the necessary energy that some are saying would necessitate there being "dark matter" or "dark energy" to account for the present structure of the universe. There is also implication that the effects of a massive black hole would produce the opposite effect of its own light devouring singularity. In other words, it produces a "push" rather than a pull on the outer reaches of its dominion. We are on the edge of a brand new paradigm that may give us the answers as to what constitutes space/time/matter. This is exciting new stuff. The recent launch of a major experiment to confirm Einstein's theories using the most perfect spheres ever made to test "frame dragging" could give us some of the empirical evidence we need to start developing the "new physics". No theory is sacrosanct. Time or space "particles" may not be so far fetched after all. The "swivel" theory mentioned in this thread may hold a great deal more meaning than we think.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Hi Zeru,
Now that I am back online and functional, I am going to try to catch up with all the good comments...starting with your post:
Roel: You know I respect you and your theories and contributions. I wanted to state this outright, as I don't want you to take the following in the wrong way. I have trouble with your time particle/wave theory because you define it as the smallest element of anything, meaning that Mass and Space are also composed of time particles/waves. This violates the "axiom" of orthogonality that I stated above. This is why I am having a hard time trying to integrate it into the Massive SpaceTime theory. I've researched the Tree Of Life, from a scientific standpoint, since 1982. In all those years of research, the things that came-up most often that connected the TOL to mainstream science were: (1) Sets of 3's, and (2) Orthogonality of these sets of 3's. Thinking of it in a more generic way: All things should be capable of being described in terms of "Active, Neutral, and Passive" elements. By the very nature of these 3 words, they are certainly orthogonal to each other. Once you understand how "sets of 3's" manifest in anything, they will automatically map onto the TOL. And this leads to Zeru's comment about CAT's sentiment:
I'll continue the "walk" up the TOL, describing each "layer" of our non-physical selves. But, of course, this is all subject to the contraints of having a "day job" involved with space exploration! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
More to come,
RainmanTime
PS - Zeru: You'll have to resend the last private EMAIL you sent. I read it, but my computer troubles started before I could respond.
RMT
Now that I am back online and functional, I am going to try to catch up with all the good comments...starting with your post:
Exactly. This corresponds to an "axiom" handed down over generations that "all things come in threes." This has also been the mainstay of my work in dissecting the science behind the Tree Of Life. But it is not only the concept of 3's, but another part of this "axiom" is that whatever you select for your "set of 3's", they must also be orthogonal to each other. This "axiom" comes from the field of tensor/vector analysis, which is a mainstay of the physical sciences. Now this leads right into my comments to Roel...
Roel: You know I respect you and your theories and contributions. I wanted to state this outright, as I don't want you to take the following in the wrong way. I have trouble with your time particle/wave theory because you define it as the smallest element of anything, meaning that Mass and Space are also composed of time particles/waves. This violates the "axiom" of orthogonality that I stated above. This is why I am having a hard time trying to integrate it into the Massive SpaceTime theory. I've researched the Tree Of Life, from a scientific standpoint, since 1982. In all those years of research, the things that came-up most often that connected the TOL to mainstream science were: (1) Sets of 3's, and (2) Orthogonality of these sets of 3's. Thinking of it in a more generic way: All things should be capable of being described in terms of "Active, Neutral, and Passive" elements. By the very nature of these 3 words, they are certainly orthogonal to each other. Once you understand how "sets of 3's" manifest in anything, they will automatically map onto the TOL. And this leads to Zeru's comment about CAT's sentiment:
Right on! This is precisely the "path" that I am walking in my TOL research and sharing, both here and on my website. I have introduced and provided scientific basis for the Massive SpaceTime model (which only extends existing science by stating that Mass and Time are also 3-D vector elements). I have described how the Massive SpaceTime Matrix "maps" to the lower pathways on the TOL, and how this set of 3 vector elements permits our minds to perceive the physical universe and react to it. I am now in the process of trying to describe how the trinity of "Matter-Motion-Tense" (Ma-Mo-Te) represent the relationships between the elements of Massive SpaceTime. These relationships map directly onto the lower triangle on the TOL, and are also the fundamental relationships utilized by our conscious mind to understand physical Energy through its use of the Massive SpaceTime Matrix. I'll have more to say about Tense in an upcoming post...as Tense is our linear interpretation of 3-D Time.
I'll continue the "walk" up the TOL, describing each "layer" of our non-physical selves. But, of course, this is all subject to the contraints of having a "day job" involved with space exploration! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
More to come,
RainmanTime
PS - Zeru: You'll have to resend the last private EMAIL you sent. I read it, but my computer troubles started before I could respond.
RMT
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Good post, Sieg! And I like your new avatar...but did you delete the "winking eye"?
... does nothing but confuse the matter (pun intended).
So, sticking to theoretical/cosmological physics, I think we started going down the wrong path when we tried to explain the irregularities of eletrons, protons, and neutrons by trying to dissect them further. I maintain that this further dissection was based on an incorrect assumption of how those atomic particles of Mass interact (integrate) with the other elements of physical reality, namely Space and Time. To this day, physicists continue to propagate what I feel is an error, namely, that Space is a 3-D vector field, but Mass and Time are both 1-D scalar fields. Just from a standpoint of balance of forces, this does not make sense! It should be obvious to a high school student that the proton, electron, and neutron are "orthogonal" to one another in terms of their charge. In my scientific view, once you "find" (define) any orthogonal set of 3 elements, THAT is the time to stop the reductionist approach, and begin to look around for the other elements that integrate with this orthogonal set. That is how I came my my conclusions of the Massive SpaceTime Matrix theory. So far, it supports all "known" science, and I do believe it has the potential to help "solve" the Mind-Body "problem".
And to summarize my point, before I go off on other tangets:
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
Glad you called me on that generality! I guess I should have made myself clearer...and another quote from you can help:
It is the area of particle/quantum/theoretical physics that I believe is way too deep in reductionist techniques. I totally agree with your assessment that a good scientist only goes as far down as s/he needs to in order to understand a given phenomenon. Going any further would be useless, as it would not tell you much. My feeling is that physicists did not really need to go any further once they "found" the concepts of Electron, Proton, and Neutron. Continuing to dissect these 3 fundamental (and orthogonal!) elements into bosons (weak and strong), muons, gluons...and I suppose there are even klingons
So, sticking to theoretical/cosmological physics, I think we started going down the wrong path when we tried to explain the irregularities of eletrons, protons, and neutrons by trying to dissect them further. I maintain that this further dissection was based on an incorrect assumption of how those atomic particles of Mass interact (integrate) with the other elements of physical reality, namely Space and Time. To this day, physicists continue to propagate what I feel is an error, namely, that Space is a 3-D vector field, but Mass and Time are both 1-D scalar fields. Just from a standpoint of balance of forces, this does not make sense! It should be obvious to a high school student that the proton, electron, and neutron are "orthogonal" to one another in terms of their charge. In my scientific view, once you "find" (define) any orthogonal set of 3 elements, THAT is the time to stop the reductionist approach, and begin to look around for the other elements that integrate with this orthogonal set. That is how I came my my conclusions of the Massive SpaceTime Matrix theory. So far, it supports all "known" science, and I do believe it has the potential to help "solve" the Mind-Body "problem".
And to summarize my point, before I go off on other tangets:
I completely agree with you....and, I do not think your model/approach is totally reductionist. Quite the opposite, it is an integrated approach: You go as low as you need to in order to understand a given mechanism. And then, you start looking around at how that mechanism relates to others at that same level. To me, this is the epitome of balancing the reductionist and integrative approaches to science! But then again, I would expect such balance from a brother Eagle!
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
Wow... the "Mind-body" problem... That's something I've looked at both from a scientific standpoint and a philosophical one.
I'm eager to discuss this one with you... but I'll have to find a time when I'm not too lazy or preoccupied to do that.
Start a thread on it, or send me an email to spark the discussion. It should be interesting.
I'm eager to discuss this one with you... but I'll have to find a time when I'm not too lazy or preoccupied to do that.
Start a thread on it, or send me an email to spark the discussion. It should be interesting.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
OK, Zerub...let me run with this "setup" you provided:
But now, let's turn the whole "black hole" thing on its head and see where it takes us. Awhile back I referred to Stan Tenen's "3,10 Torus Knot" as being a potential means to visualize my Massive SpaceTime integrated Matrix model. The "middle axis" of the 3,10 Torus Knot would represent the tight integration of the orthogonal elements of Mass, Space, and Time that we seem to perceive in the universe around us. If we then relate Massive SpaceTime and the 3,10 Torus Knot to the concept of the black hole....what might this be suggesting to us???? I'll spell it out: It may just be telling us that our universe (wherein we perceive Mass, Space, and Time) could be "trapped" within the "throat" of a black hole! This, in turn, would suggest that the things we perceive as being black holes in our Massive SpaceTime sector of the universe would actually represent the "mouths" at the end of the 3,10 Torus Knot.
So now what do you think of that theory? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RainmanTime
Oh yeah, I've been keeping track of these! In addition to this, the NASA WMAP probe launched back in 2001 is one of the sources that implies that "matter" as we know it is only about 6% of the total energy in the universe. The other 94% is divided up amongst "dark matter" (potentially anti-gravitating, whereas "light matter" gravitates), and the largest portion of energy called "dark energy".
But now, let's turn the whole "black hole" thing on its head and see where it takes us. Awhile back I referred to Stan Tenen's "3,10 Torus Knot" as being a potential means to visualize my Massive SpaceTime integrated Matrix model. The "middle axis" of the 3,10 Torus Knot would represent the tight integration of the orthogonal elements of Mass, Space, and Time that we seem to perceive in the universe around us. If we then relate Massive SpaceTime and the 3,10 Torus Knot to the concept of the black hole....what might this be suggesting to us???? I'll spell it out: It may just be telling us that our universe (wherein we perceive Mass, Space, and Time) could be "trapped" within the "throat" of a black hole! This, in turn, would suggest that the things we perceive as being black holes in our Massive SpaceTime sector of the universe would actually represent the "mouths" at the end of the 3,10 Torus Knot.
So now what do you think of that theory? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RainmanTime