- #1
Philocrat
- 612
- 0
THE STANDARD UNIVERSAL NOW (SUN): A Philosophical Analysis of Time (PART I)
I have always suspected that the scepticism about the reality of time and its perceived dimensions (past, present and future) has something to do with the way we are physically designed and configured. This problem, like all other gaps in the human knowledge, may remain irresolvable for a very long time to come, unless perhaps the human reality is subsequently reviewed and re-engineered. Now, the problem has regressed further to a sceptical height where it becomes possible to begin to deny one of the dimensions of time - the present. The suggestion that there may not be any such thing as the present, therefore we are always either in the past or in the future, seems to me to be very radical requiring an equally radical philosophical review. My argument is that if there is no present, along with the uncertainty as to whether we are in the past or future, then we need to look at some mathematical formulation involving the notion ‘OMNIPRESENCY’ already been imagined in scriptures and in science fiction novels and movies. The beauty of it is that we have already imagined it in one form or the other. Here I am going to investigate and state the quantitative and logical implications of the concept of omnipresency. The derivation of this investigation is a ‘superstructure’ that I call the ‘STANDARD UNIVERSAL NOW’ (SUN), otherwise relabelled ‘THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE SUN’, and which I will link to the notions of a ‘SUPER BEING’ and a ‘SUPER OBSERVER’. It is a formulation that assumes Progressive existence. My arguments therefore will end by claiming that (1) the SUN is the ‘true’ present that is at least in principle possible, if not in actuality, and (2) this conceptual possibility, or possibility in principle, does not rule out actuality or physical realisation. The physical realisation or actuality of this conceptual possibility remains potentially active.
OMNIPRESENCY: Physical or Devine?
When it comes to the notion of ‘OMNIPRESENCY’, there are two fundamental types: (1) ‘MECHANICAL (PHYSICAL) OMNIPRESENCY’ and (2) ‘DIVINE OMNIPRESENCY’. Both are equally problematic. Einstein’s universal constant in his theory of relativity has imposed a physical limitation upon the possibility of (1). So, in physics, physicists would just straightforwardly deny it. With regards to (2), many philosophers don’t even believe in the existence of God or Divine Agency, let alone its possibility. This denial has its origin in the so-called ‘ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT’ (http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm) (http://www.faithnet.org.uk/A2 Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/ontologicalargument.htm) (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ontological.html ) for the existence of God. As far as they are concerned there is no such thing as a divine omnipresency. Another problem is the vagueness of the term itself. It is not clear whether by the term we mean:
a) One thing being in every place at the same time
b) Or many of the same thing being everywhere at the same time.
In this piece I am going to assume (a), that is, one thing being everywhere at the same time. However, since physics has denied (1) and philosophy analytically disposed of (2), I am going to systematically ignore (1) and (2) and just take (a) as a purely imaginary but quantitative and logical exercise. But immediately after making this decision, another serious question arises: do I have to assign a specific ‘PURPOSE’ to anything wanting to be everywhere? Why would anything want to reference every position in space at the same time or at time t = 0? Why be everywhere at the same time? In other to make sense of this imaginary quantitative and logical exercise, I decided to assign a purpose to an imaginary being that is separately spaced and timed but who is nevertheless able to perform our phantom feat of being omnipresent. Let’s call this being ‘THE FINAL BEING’ or ‘TIMELESS TRAVELLER’. This being was once a structurally and functionally defective being that has progressed to a final perfect state of being through constant self-revaluation and structural self-reengineering. But this final being needs a witness in form of an observer. Let us call this witness ‘THE FINAL OBSERVER’. This final onlooker is by its whole nature structurally and functionally identical to the Final being. He/she too has progressed through time to state of Visual Perfection. What he/she sees stays seen. The stability in his/her visual faculty is unshakeable by any device of doubt. So, quantitatively and logically, the Final Being stands relative to the Final Observer.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE ‘SUN’ AND THE ‘FINAL MAN’
The notion of omnipresency is such that both the final being and the final observer must progress to a point where time will be perceived as nothing more than a supercritical ‘NOW’ and space as a supercritical ‘HERE’. This, by implications, means that ‘Here’ is neither there nor everywhere, but a permanent and non-reversible ‘Here’, which holds and conserves the final good. The same is true of ‘Now’ for it is neither then nor ordinary occasions, nor past nor future, but a permanent and non-reversible ‘Now,’ which participates in the measure, maintenance of final things in the supercritical Here. Both when combined disposes of the Einstein’s defective SPACETIME and forms a new superstructure called ‘HERENOW’. I was also considering the possibility of reversing the two words and renaming it ‘NOWHERE’, but I quickly spotted the perceptual danger of being erroneously perceived and construed by the future observers and innocent bystanders or spectators as ‘NO WHERE’. It would have been an absolute psychological disaster to perceive an ideal superstructural NOW and HERE as a supercritical NO-WHERE or NOTHINGNESS.
Although physical space distances and time differences may still be physically installed between things, such as a thousand miles between separately spaced events still remaining a thousand miles or the physical time duration between them still remaining at, say, six hours, but new abilities in visually led super-structured things will cause them to act and perceive timelessly and spacelessly on their causal pathways, given that the principle of the ‘SUN’ is causally and relationally viable in the first place.
In terms of purpose, the final aim of all causal possibilities on the universal causal pathways is to create and maintain a ‘Standard Universal NOW (SUN)’ in the visual faculty of the observer. It is the final frontier in the human perception and understanding of Reality. That is, the ability of a self-proclaimed entity to be everywhere at time t = 0. To freeze diverse senses of time into a CRITICAL, NON-REVERSIBLE NOW in the ever curious eye of the ‘FINAL’ onlooker or observer, will be the highest point in the human visualisation and understanding of reality.
The mathematical equations for achieving omnipresency may be stated as follows (and this is also the mathematics for disposing of time in spatio-temporal relations):
[tex]\alpha = \frac{\sum y}{z^y}[/tex]
Where [tex]\alpha [/tex]= infinity or zero time travelled;
Where [tex]\sum y [/tex] = the sum of distances between events referenced at once, and;
Where [tex]z^y[/tex] = the speed of light times a scalar squared. A scalar is a special number that when applied to the speed of light and square, helps shrink both the distance and time traveled to zero in the observer’s or final man’s imagination or visual frame of reference, in a full compliance with the principle of the SUN above.
It must be appreciated that a scalar is not some number that would be cooked up by some mad mathematician or conjured into existence by some unknown divine agency. I do not know what this scalar or special number is going to be in future, whether it will be expressed as a variant of energy required by the final traveller in response to the fluctuating Sg, but in the ‘Book of Nature’, a scalar would be a number of unique value with proscribed physical consequences: it must be a number quantitatively derived, perhaps, from a structural and physical re-design of reality. All structurally and functionally improved or re-designed parts of a whole must effectively subscribe to this number, since it is logically and quantitatively consistent that the final traveller is able to physically adjust its speed according to the fluctuating distance, but for the purpose of this equation I have decided to use an imaginary number.
The problem with using a scalar in this equation is that it can never lead to an absolute zero in the anticipated value of [tex]\alpha [/tex], rather it always leads to an approximate fractional zero value. To help push the fractional zero value as close to an absolute zero as possible, I have decided to use the value of [tex]\sum y [/tex] as my own scalar. It must be realized that the application of a scalar to this equation in this manner is an imaginary violation of Einstein’s universal constant, the speed of light, which is currently claimed to be the fastest material substance known to man. So physics says, but I am personally sceptical about this.This is very necessary in the equation to demonstrate and display for the whole world to see what is expected of the final being of any kind, if he/she/it is to stay indefinitely OMNIPRESENT in the final observer’s visual frame of reference.
Continue in part II on the next link...
I have always suspected that the scepticism about the reality of time and its perceived dimensions (past, present and future) has something to do with the way we are physically designed and configured. This problem, like all other gaps in the human knowledge, may remain irresolvable for a very long time to come, unless perhaps the human reality is subsequently reviewed and re-engineered. Now, the problem has regressed further to a sceptical height where it becomes possible to begin to deny one of the dimensions of time - the present. The suggestion that there may not be any such thing as the present, therefore we are always either in the past or in the future, seems to me to be very radical requiring an equally radical philosophical review. My argument is that if there is no present, along with the uncertainty as to whether we are in the past or future, then we need to look at some mathematical formulation involving the notion ‘OMNIPRESENCY’ already been imagined in scriptures and in science fiction novels and movies. The beauty of it is that we have already imagined it in one form or the other. Here I am going to investigate and state the quantitative and logical implications of the concept of omnipresency. The derivation of this investigation is a ‘superstructure’ that I call the ‘STANDARD UNIVERSAL NOW’ (SUN), otherwise relabelled ‘THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE SUN’, and which I will link to the notions of a ‘SUPER BEING’ and a ‘SUPER OBSERVER’. It is a formulation that assumes Progressive existence. My arguments therefore will end by claiming that (1) the SUN is the ‘true’ present that is at least in principle possible, if not in actuality, and (2) this conceptual possibility, or possibility in principle, does not rule out actuality or physical realisation. The physical realisation or actuality of this conceptual possibility remains potentially active.
OMNIPRESENCY: Physical or Devine?
When it comes to the notion of ‘OMNIPRESENCY’, there are two fundamental types: (1) ‘MECHANICAL (PHYSICAL) OMNIPRESENCY’ and (2) ‘DIVINE OMNIPRESENCY’. Both are equally problematic. Einstein’s universal constant in his theory of relativity has imposed a physical limitation upon the possibility of (1). So, in physics, physicists would just straightforwardly deny it. With regards to (2), many philosophers don’t even believe in the existence of God or Divine Agency, let alone its possibility. This denial has its origin in the so-called ‘ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT’ (http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm) (http://www.faithnet.org.uk/A2 Subjects/Philosophyofreligion/ontologicalargument.htm) (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/ontological.html ) for the existence of God. As far as they are concerned there is no such thing as a divine omnipresency. Another problem is the vagueness of the term itself. It is not clear whether by the term we mean:
a) One thing being in every place at the same time
b) Or many of the same thing being everywhere at the same time.
In this piece I am going to assume (a), that is, one thing being everywhere at the same time. However, since physics has denied (1) and philosophy analytically disposed of (2), I am going to systematically ignore (1) and (2) and just take (a) as a purely imaginary but quantitative and logical exercise. But immediately after making this decision, another serious question arises: do I have to assign a specific ‘PURPOSE’ to anything wanting to be everywhere? Why would anything want to reference every position in space at the same time or at time t = 0? Why be everywhere at the same time? In other to make sense of this imaginary quantitative and logical exercise, I decided to assign a purpose to an imaginary being that is separately spaced and timed but who is nevertheless able to perform our phantom feat of being omnipresent. Let’s call this being ‘THE FINAL BEING’ or ‘TIMELESS TRAVELLER’. This being was once a structurally and functionally defective being that has progressed to a final perfect state of being through constant self-revaluation and structural self-reengineering. But this final being needs a witness in form of an observer. Let us call this witness ‘THE FINAL OBSERVER’. This final onlooker is by its whole nature structurally and functionally identical to the Final being. He/she too has progressed through time to state of Visual Perfection. What he/she sees stays seen. The stability in his/her visual faculty is unshakeable by any device of doubt. So, quantitatively and logically, the Final Being stands relative to the Final Observer.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE ‘SUN’ AND THE ‘FINAL MAN’
The notion of omnipresency is such that both the final being and the final observer must progress to a point where time will be perceived as nothing more than a supercritical ‘NOW’ and space as a supercritical ‘HERE’. This, by implications, means that ‘Here’ is neither there nor everywhere, but a permanent and non-reversible ‘Here’, which holds and conserves the final good. The same is true of ‘Now’ for it is neither then nor ordinary occasions, nor past nor future, but a permanent and non-reversible ‘Now,’ which participates in the measure, maintenance of final things in the supercritical Here. Both when combined disposes of the Einstein’s defective SPACETIME and forms a new superstructure called ‘HERENOW’. I was also considering the possibility of reversing the two words and renaming it ‘NOWHERE’, but I quickly spotted the perceptual danger of being erroneously perceived and construed by the future observers and innocent bystanders or spectators as ‘NO WHERE’. It would have been an absolute psychological disaster to perceive an ideal superstructural NOW and HERE as a supercritical NO-WHERE or NOTHINGNESS.
Although physical space distances and time differences may still be physically installed between things, such as a thousand miles between separately spaced events still remaining a thousand miles or the physical time duration between them still remaining at, say, six hours, but new abilities in visually led super-structured things will cause them to act and perceive timelessly and spacelessly on their causal pathways, given that the principle of the ‘SUN’ is causally and relationally viable in the first place.
In terms of purpose, the final aim of all causal possibilities on the universal causal pathways is to create and maintain a ‘Standard Universal NOW (SUN)’ in the visual faculty of the observer. It is the final frontier in the human perception and understanding of Reality. That is, the ability of a self-proclaimed entity to be everywhere at time t = 0. To freeze diverse senses of time into a CRITICAL, NON-REVERSIBLE NOW in the ever curious eye of the ‘FINAL’ onlooker or observer, will be the highest point in the human visualisation and understanding of reality.
The mathematical equations for achieving omnipresency may be stated as follows (and this is also the mathematics for disposing of time in spatio-temporal relations):
[tex]\alpha = \frac{\sum y}{z^y}[/tex]
Where [tex]\alpha [/tex]= infinity or zero time travelled;
Where [tex]\sum y [/tex] = the sum of distances between events referenced at once, and;
Where [tex]z^y[/tex] = the speed of light times a scalar squared. A scalar is a special number that when applied to the speed of light and square, helps shrink both the distance and time traveled to zero in the observer’s or final man’s imagination or visual frame of reference, in a full compliance with the principle of the SUN above.
It must be appreciated that a scalar is not some number that would be cooked up by some mad mathematician or conjured into existence by some unknown divine agency. I do not know what this scalar or special number is going to be in future, whether it will be expressed as a variant of energy required by the final traveller in response to the fluctuating Sg, but in the ‘Book of Nature’, a scalar would be a number of unique value with proscribed physical consequences: it must be a number quantitatively derived, perhaps, from a structural and physical re-design of reality. All structurally and functionally improved or re-designed parts of a whole must effectively subscribe to this number, since it is logically and quantitatively consistent that the final traveller is able to physically adjust its speed according to the fluctuating distance, but for the purpose of this equation I have decided to use an imaginary number.
The problem with using a scalar in this equation is that it can never lead to an absolute zero in the anticipated value of [tex]\alpha [/tex], rather it always leads to an approximate fractional zero value. To help push the fractional zero value as close to an absolute zero as possible, I have decided to use the value of [tex]\sum y [/tex] as my own scalar. It must be realized that the application of a scalar to this equation in this manner is an imaginary violation of Einstein’s universal constant, the speed of light, which is currently claimed to be the fastest material substance known to man. So physics says, but I am personally sceptical about this.This is very necessary in the equation to demonstrate and display for the whole world to see what is expected of the final being of any kind, if he/she/it is to stay indefinitely OMNIPRESENT in the final observer’s visual frame of reference.
Continue in part II on the next link...
Last edited by a moderator: