Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

4D-Spacetime + Mind = The Experience Of The Unfolding Of The Events Moment By Moment

spacetime mind space time

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 MaartenV

MaartenV

    Curious

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 31 March 2018 - 12:29 PM

 I want to share with you my hypothesis about spacetime, time and observers. What do you think about my following hypothesis:

Reality, in itself, without observers, is a manifold, a 4D-object.

 

Spacetime is this 4D-object, which is not directly observable/measurable, but only deducable.

 

Spacetime is therefore, in my opinion, a Platonic entity, very real, even more 'real' then our relativistic observations of time and space, but pure abstract to us, and mathematical to us. We can’t observe it directly.

So, the mathematicians and theoretical physisists should like this idea that reality n itself, without minds to perceive/measure it, is only pure mathematical.

Einstein said that time is an illusion. Physicist Brian Greene also said that time is an illusion.

 

In my opinion: time and space are not an illusion: it’s just a way of reality (spacetime) to present itself to a conscious mind. Let me explain this.

Spacertime is all events from past, present and maybe future. (Einstein, Minkowski)

The interaction of minds (human or animal) with spacetime results in the experience of the unfolding of these events, moment by moment in the actual moment by observers.

 

First there was spacetime. Undefined. Events from past, present and future existing together in a 4D object.

Then a conscious observer (an animal, a human, ...) came into being. He experiences these events, unfolding themselves, moment by moment in the actual moment. Which is not how reality outthere, in itself, exists. (see 4D-objects in 4D-spacetime)

 

These observers (humans) can deduce spacetime (reality in itself without observers), based on their relativistic observations of space and time. A mathematical 4D-object. More absolute (not relative) then their relativistic observations of space and time.

 

The most important factor in this hypothesis is that 'minds' are involved in physics. Minds are, somehow, lawfully connected to their observations/measurement of the events through time. An observer is a mind in this context. I know that 'observer' in physics has another meaning. But only a mind can experience the unfolding of the events moment by moment. An instrument or measuring device cannot. All steps of a scientific experiment exist together outthere in spacetime. And the measuring device, measuring or observing the universe, is a series of events, already existing in the past, present and maybe also the future. Only a conscious mind, like a scientist, can experience the scientific experiment, unfolding itself, moment by moment in the actual moment.

 

That’s a crucial the difference between a mind and a measuring device. The 'experience' of time.
 

To have an observable universe as we see it through our telescopes, you need minds to capture the events moment by moment. The interaction of a mind with 4D-spacetime, results in the experience of the events through time, moment by moment.

 

Maarten Vergucht


Edited by MaartenV, 31 March 2018 - 12:35 PM.


#2 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1039 posts

Posted 31 March 2018 - 02:01 PM

You seem to be describing Dualism. It's a philosophy that I wholeheartedly share.

The universe could have none of the properties we observe without the conscious mind to observe them because the universe can only be defined in terms of how it's perceived the perception of our five senses is a construct, a film our mind generates based on external stimuli. To endow the universe with any kind of independent properties is naive and pointless without consciousness because there's absolutely no context. Consciousness is fundamental because existence is defined by that which is consciously observed.

 

 Einstein said that time is an illusion. Physicist Brian Greene also said that time is an illusion.

Time is one quarter of the manifold in which all matter and energy is housed. I think what Einstein and others meant is that time as a perceived sequence of events is illusory, it's just consciousnesses way of experiencing. We can only directly observe in one direction of one of the dimensions, we remember the past and not the future. That's all that's needed to create the illusion of a moving timeline. The sense of being in the now isn't unique to any particular moment, we have it in every moment of our lives.

 

First there was spacetime. Undefined. Events from past, present and future existing together in a 4D object.

Then a conscious observer (an animal, a human, ...) came into being. He experiences these events, unfolding themselves, moment by moment in the actual moment. Which is not how reality outthere, in itself, exists. (see 4D-objects in 4D-spacetime)

In a 4D context there is no first or then. Everything exists simultaneously and motionless. It's more like: There is spacetime, events from past, present and future existing together with all of space in a 4D object. At a specific point consciousness exists and the universe beyond these coordinates in one of the four dimensions is able to perceive itself and the universe appears to have form.

 

The really interesting thing to think about is whether the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is what allows us freedom to experience our choice of possible arrangements of matter and energy to give us free will. There seems to be evidence that consciousness plays a fundamental role in the collapse of the wave function which can be seem as the choice of possibilities narrowing down to one.

 

Some people think the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment confirms that consciousness is the cause of wave function collapse but others say it doesn't. I don't know the specifics of the experiment well enough but a lot of the pioneers of QM shared the view that consciousness must be fundamental and everything else is derived from it. Most scientists are materialist reductionists (an unsupported philosophy that I detest) so they won't admit that the arrow points in the other direction until they're forced to.

 

Great first post.


Edited by A-wal, 31 March 2018 - 02:04 PM.


#3 MaartenV

MaartenV

    Curious

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 31 March 2018 - 04:42 PM

Ok, thank you for this great answer. Consciousness is something undefinable in physics. It's a zeropoint in mathematics, a blind spot in our observations and measurements. Yet it exists and it is real. I experience, thererfore I am. It's the only thing you can be certain about: that you are a conscious mind. 

 

I


Edited by MaartenV, 31 March 2018 - 04:45 PM.


#4 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1524 posts

Posted 31 March 2018 - 04:42 PM

You seem to be describing Dualism. It's a philosophy that I wholeheartedly share.

The universe could have none of the properties we observe without the conscious mind to observe them

 

 

This absolutely cannot be true. There were things that were happening long before anyone was around to observe them. Otherwise how did the observer come about?

 

This absolutist notion that reality without consciousness cannot exist must be abandoned with. Alternatively there are good reasons to think consciousness is the universe just expressing itself in all forms of life, but to think it is fundamental to the dynamics in the sense it creates them is highly subjective and suggestive that nothing exists prior to an observer which causes a paradox.



#5 MaartenV

MaartenV

    Curious

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 31 March 2018 - 04:57 PM

This absolutely cannot be true. There were things that were happening long before anyone was around to observe them. Otherwise how did the observer come about?

 

This absolutist notion that reality without consciousness cannot exist must be abandoned with. Alternatively there are good reasons to think consciousness is the universe just expressing itself in all forms of life, but to think it is fundamental to the dynamics in the sense it creates them is highly subjective and suggestive that nothing exists prior to an observer which causes a paradox.

 

I don't say that reality without observer does not exist. Reality, without observers is 'the block universe'. This 4D-universe with time and space combined to one continuüm. It's pure mathematical to us, but more real then our relativistic observations of time and space.

But, we, observers or minds do not have access to this 4D-universe where all events from past, present and maybe future already exist. We only have access to the actual moment, the present. We experience the events moment by moment in the actual moment. That's a result of the interaction of a mind with This 4D-universe, which can only be deduced based on our relativistic observations of space and time. 4D-spacertime is pure mathematical to us. But it's more real, more absolute (not relative) then our relativistic observations of time and space.


Edited by MaartenV, 31 March 2018 - 05:00 PM.


#6 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1039 posts

Posted 13 April 2018 - 04:28 PM

You seem to be describing Dualism. It's a philosophy that I wholeheartedly share.

The universe could have none of the properties we observe without the conscious mind to observe them...

This absolutely cannot be true. There were things that were happening long before anyone was around to observe them. Otherwise how did the observer come about?

 

This absolutist notion that reality without consciousness cannot exist must be abandoned with. Alternatively there are good reasons to think consciousness is the universe just expressing itself in all forms of life, but to think it is fundamental to the dynamics in the sense it creates them is highly subjective and suggestive that nothing exists prior to an observer which causes a paradox.

There's absolutely no reason to think that the universe existed or even could exist prior to consciousness, in fact it's not merely unnecessary, it's absurd nonsense. The material universe can only ever be thought of as a conscious experience, it has no context outside of that framework because if conscious wasn't here everything we think of as the material universe - by definition - couldn't exist. It's an idea, a story that our mind creates based on external inputs. What's it made of? It's made of perception, our five senses. Conscious perception creates the universe, not the other way round.



#7 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1524 posts

Posted 15 April 2018 - 04:34 AM

There's absolutely no reason to think that the universe existed or even could exist prior to consciousness, in fact it's not merely unnecessary, it's absurd nonsense

 

 

I beg your pardon? There is ''no reason to think that the universe could exist prior to consciousness?''

 

That's pseudoscience. The observer is not as important as we have been led to believe, things like the collapse of the wave function, happen in absence of consciousness. There is [every reason] to think the universe can exist prior to consciousness. It's a different kind of question however to think the universe prior to consciousness was set up in such a way that it allows consciousness. Otherwise, there is abundant physical evidence things where happening long before consciousness was in the universe.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 15 April 2018 - 04:35 AM.


#8 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1039 posts

Posted 15 April 2018 - 05:20 PM

I beg your pardon? There is ''no reason to think that the universe could exist prior to consciousness?''

 

That's pseudoscience. The observer is not as important as we have been led to believe, things like the collapse of the wave function, happen in absence of consciousness...

What are you on about? This isn't based on QM. It amazes me how many people just can't get there heads around this because it should be the most obvious thing there is, we're just brought up not to think of it in this way.

 

The only properties the universe can ever have are entirely based on perception, what it looks, sounds, feels, tastes and smells like. It's insane to think that it can exist independently of consciousness when the only way that it can be defined is by how it's consciously perceived.

 

You could think of it purely in terms physical relationships that exist in the absence of consciousness but that's true pseudoscience because it doesn't represent anything real. In the absence of perception it's just maths.



#9 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1524 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 12:14 AM

Everything is based on quantum mechanics.



#10 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1039 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 01:09 AM

Not consciousness, although that's almost certainly where the link between the conscious and the material lies.



#11 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1524 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 01:31 AM

Yes, even consciousness. Consciousness is inside of the universe and so subject to its laws. In fact, this should be an obvious fact since consciousness and matter have inseparable connections.



#12 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1524 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 01:32 AM

Read my blog which covers this subject concerning interdependence of matter and consciousness.

 

https://consciousnes...ss-What-is-Life



#13 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1039 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 02:20 AM

Yes, even consciousness. Consciousness is inside of the universe and so subject to its laws. In fact, this should be an obvious fact since consciousness and matter have inseparable connections.

Consciousness is not a product of the universe, the universe is a product of consciousness. We know the universe can't exist without consciousness because the universe is entirely defined by how it's consciously perceived.

 

Of course you could say that we know consciousness can't exist without the universe but this would be a totally unfounded claim because it presupposes that consciousness is somehow generated my mechanical processes, this is totally absurd and based of nothing. Also you can very easily separate your consciousness from your physical body, it's called DMT. If you think it's an hallucination then you obviously haven't experienced it but for arguments sake let's assume it is. We still know that the universe can't exist (in any sense that we think of as real) without consciousness but we don't know that consciousness can't exist without the universe, so at best from the materialist mindset the two are interdependent.



#14 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1039 posts

Posted 16 April 2018 - 04:30 AM

Read my blog which covers this subject concerning interdependence of matter and consciousness.

 

https://consciousnes...ss-What-is-Life

I've read some of it, despite being told to. 'I've written a blog which covers this subject...'

 

I'll read the rest later. I don't at all agree with the logic you use to conclude that mind requires matter to exist. You seem to be suggesting that although our perception of the universe is a creation of our mind, it's a recreation of how the universe actually is but how we perceive it (how it looks, sounds, etc) requires a conscious mind. In the absence of consciousness you can't use the mental constructs of consciousness to describe it, without the mind matter has no form.

 

Some grammatical errors that I spotted, I'm terrible for this when I write...

 

"Further conclusions can lead to different but equally interesting idea's concerning the physical brain vs the subjective experience of the mind."

Ideas shouldn't have a '.

"It was only recently scientists discovered that the double helix DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) could hold much more information than previously HAD been thought [see references]."

"Of course, the greatest task would be to find a unification between physics and biology.Many"

Needs a space after biology. You also say 'of course twice in the same sentence (three times in two consecutive sentences) which doesn't sound good.

"From this we learn, that even an atom ripe to give up its energy, all depends on what is happening inside the atom."

Comma should be after the that.

"Since it is possible to stop an atom from radiating away its energy, then its..."

It's possible.

"...going on at work here"

Going on here or at work here not both.