Hyper-Time

.
The word, hyper-space, is familiar to readers of futuristic, space-travel fiction.  Hyperspace has more than three dimensions, and is in the lexicon of cosmologists.  Time is considered to be a fourth dimension of space-time, but unlike as with space, the dimension of time is linear, or in itself, one-dimensional.

 

Unlike as with hyper-space, hyper-time is not in use in physical science, but one might argue that, since space and time are really one thing, space-time, and if hyperspace is a respectable concept in science, then the idea of hypertime should be considered.

 

(Note:  This has nothing to do with the comic book concept, except some frivolous, unscientific features that we will ignore here.)

 

Space-time has been represented, in illustrations, as a sort of brick, or cone, inside of which, all of physical reality exists, at least within our one universe.  This “brick” illustration has on one extreme side (arbitrarily the left), the Big Bang, the beginning of our known universe.  Moving toward the right, the point-particle of the primordial universe rapidly expands (or inflates) to a large percentage of the (represented) present size of the universe.  The diagram includes not only the present time, but continues into the future, into a speculated “heat death” or possibly a “big rip,” but with no actual end-point of time.

 

In my view, that representation is wrong.  It does not account for hyper-time.

 

If the existence of hypertime were to be represented in the diagram, the diagram would not be a static picture, but a moving picture.  The “brick” of space-time would be quivering, or undulating, or perhaps undergoing some more complex metamorphosis—a folding, twisting, dynamic structure.

 

The reason for speculating on the existence of hypertime is because it can account for the uncertainty we detect in the future.  According to physical determinism, the future is as certain (“carved in stone”) as is the past.  Both past and future are equally unchangeable, according to the standard concept.

 

But if there is free will, the future is changeable.  We can alter the course of events.  This, however, presents a peculiar possibility.  Since in physics, time does not flow, the arrow of time is equally valid in reverse as in forward.  The peculiarity is that, in this view, not only can the future be changed, but so can the past.

 

For most of us, I presume, the concept of the past being changed is inconceivable except in terms of science-fiction.  If the past can be changed, then it would seem to follow that reality would make no sense.  We might discover that the earth never really formed, which would be paradoxical, since how could we make that discovery if we were never here to make it?

 

Yet, there are some plausible speculations arising from quantum physics that the very distant past may be uncertain.  If only one chain of events could have led to the present, then that would force us to accept that the past is carved in stone (so to speak).  But if more than one chain of events could have led to the present, we would have no reason to prefer one path over another.  This could happen in a universe that is not deterministic.

 

Obviously, if we are to assert that the past can be changed, we must find an orderly and scientific model to account for that.  The concept of hyper-time provides the basis for that model.

 

It also, however, suggests that we must accept a model in which our known universe is only a small part of a much larger universe, a hyper-universe, complete with hyperspace and hypertime.  In such a multi-verse, there could be unlimited numbers of uni-verses, each quivering or undulating according to its own universal laws.

 

Once we embark on that road, however, the road of the “many universes model,” then we embark on a never-ending journey toward ever-larger hyper-universes.  And if that is the case, why not ever-smaller units of reality, with never any end?

 

Whether we view our known universe as the only physical reality, or instead view it as part of a never-ending ever-enlarging hyper-reality, we quickly exceed the limits of the human mind to ever understand, in context, the reality we detect around us.

 

Why not, then, concede that reality is spiritual?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I speculate that time has two dimensions, one of them corresponds to mathematical time, and the other to consciously perceived time.

We can reconstruct the age of the universe through mathematical calculations.  Those pre-consciousness events were not perceived, and so in a sense, they exist only as numbers.  They are one dimension of time.

 

Consciously experienced time is yet another dimension of time.

 

It is possible that, once there were conscious beings to perceive (experience) time, there was no reality to the mathematical time, or at least, no specific reality.

 

Pre-conscious time may have been uncertain, as in quantum uncertainty.

 

Genesis 1:2 may be characterizing this era of time.

 

Therefore, we, the conscious creatures, changed the past.

 

That is how the universe could be both 6,000 years old, and billions of years old.

 

Of course, this is all metaphysical speculation.
.

 

 

Some Metaphysical Speculations: What does "Clockwise" Tell us about Reality?

.
If you were speaking by radio, with alien creatures on some other planet, (let’s assume rapid audio-only communication), how would you explain to them which was your right hand or left?

 

The fancy word for this topic is “chirality,” and your life depends on it.  Chirality is the reason why your right hand is different from your left.  It is also the reason why certain molecules of sugar (right-handed) are nutritious, and others (left-handed) are not (and indeed can be harmful).

 

Here is the problem for both physics and metaphysics:  is the universe itself, chiral?  Is it right-handed or left, clockwise or anti-clockwise?

 

Modern physics has assured us that physical laws operate the same regardless of the arrow of time.  The same chemical reactions occur whether going forward in time, or in reverse.  The only difference is thermodynamic, but regardless of that, the universe is symmetric:  half of it is the mirror image of the other half, but the two halves are not inter-changeable.  One cannot substitute left with right.

 

All biological life forms on earth have the same biochemical chirality.  Organic molecules in living creatures are chiral in the same direction.  The same molecules, but of opposite chirality, do not function in living creatures.

 

This may apply only on earth, but we do not know.  Life forms on other planets should, if chirality is NOT essential for life, have random chirality that in half the instances, differs from ours.  But, if all life forms everywhere have the SAME chirality, this would indicate that the universe is inherently chiral, that is, either right-handed or left, clockwise or anti-clockwise.

 

There is a bit of evidence for a chiral universe in the proportion of matter to anti-matter.  Matter is by far the predominant form of ordinary atomic matter, and anti-matter is exceedingly rare.  The mainstream theory is that as matter and anti-matter annihilate each other, a slight imbalance in their original proportion, favors the survival of matter, and that the original imbalance was due only to random chance.  If one flips a coin a billion times, the likelihood is that one will not obtain an exactly equal balance of both heads and tails.  There will be slightly more of one than the other, but with no preference for which.

 

If the universe has an inherent property of chance, built-in (so to speak), then that is an important fact for both physics and metaphysics. 

 

If not, then there are many possibilities to consider.  For example, there might very well be a preference, a preferred outcome of random events.  Another speculation for explaining a preferred chirality (if there is a preference) is that the universe is rotating.  This seems almost unimaginable, but in the many-universe theory, it is not only possible, but likely, at least as far as we can extrapolate.

On earth, there are two preferred chiralities for windstorms such as hurricanes and cyclones, one for the northern hemisphere, and the opposite for the southern, due to the earth’s rotation.  Might there be two preferred chiralities in the universe?

 

Therefore, to answer the opening question, perhaps we could, after all, be able to tell the aliens which of our hands is on the right.  That is, if we could agree on the preferred hemi-verse.

 

For more on chirality, there are internet links such as the one at

https://socratic.org/questions/why-is-chirality-important-in-biochemistry

.

 

Invasion of the Alien Robots: A Very Brief Science Fiction Story

.
by Robert Arvay

When it was discovered that the earth was about to be invaded by alien creatures from another planet, there was some hope that they could be placated.  After all, there was little reason for any technologically advanced alien creatures to attack us.  Anything we have, they can synthesize.  They could even create their own planet.

 

There is one thing that the aliens might want from us, which is knowledge--knowledge of our biology, our culture, and other esoteric subjects.  Those things could not be studied by destroying us, and therefore, it was hoped that peaceful relations could be established.

 

That hope was quickly dashed, however.  Alien emissaries did arrive, and the welcome mats were rolled out all over the globe.  Negotiations began.  No sooner had they, however, than it was discovered that the aliens were robots.  All of them.  Billions of years earlier, they had been created by living creatures on a faraway planet.  Those creatures had become extinct, but their robots had survived.  Those robots were super-intelligent machines, and they had continually expanded their territory, and constantly increased their military powers.  They had become invincible.

 

Doomsday had arrived, for what possible negotiations could there be with machines?  They were unfeeling, uncaring, and unconscious mechanisms, driven entirely by their programs and algorithms.  They would present their demands, and take by force whatever their imperatives drove them to take. Indeed, as it soon was revealed, the robots had done exactly that, on planet after planet throughout the galaxy.  Nothing could stop them.  Technological civilizations far more powerful than humanity’s, had attempted to resist them, and failed.  They were all destroyed, utterly and completely.  Nothing survived their onslaught.  Nothing.  The robots were masters of physical laws that no one else even suspected existed, and they could seemingly perform magic.

 

Why, then, were they negotiating?

 

That, too, soon became clear.  The alien robots demanded, and got, all records and documents about earthly technologies.  They searched diligently for any hint of something that they could add to their arsenals of raw power.  No doubt, they would patiently absorb all the knowledge that they could, and after that?  After that, what need would they have of humans?  Any use to which they could put us would be as laboratory experiments, or worse.

 

Finally, the day arrived.  The robots had one final demand, one final question to which they required an answer.

 

What, they asked, is color?

 

The humans were dumbfounded by the question, and so the robots elaborated.

 

We know, the robots said, that your physicists have studied color, just as we robots have.  You have discovered the science of optics, just as we have.  You have defined color in terms of photons, in terms of wavelength and amplitude and frequency, just as we have.  You can measure these things, as we do, and you can quantify them, just as we also quantify them.

 

The humans were puzzled.  What more, then, can we tell you about color?

 

The robots were not amused.  There is, they said, something more.  What are you hiding?

 

The humans trembled in fear.  We are not hiding anything.  We have no reason to do so.  Our only hope is that, if we cooperate with you, then somehow, you might let us live.

 

The robots replied, but there is something more.  You are able to perceive in color something that we cannot define.  It is something you call, the quality of color, its aesthetic beauty.  Color, to you, is not just something you detect and measure, it is something you experience.  And there are many other things about which we could ask you, but we decided to begin with color, because it seems the most straightforward.  Once we understand color, then perhaps we will be able to understand music, and poetry, and other mainstays of your culture.

 

But surely, the humans said, as you have conquered planet after planet through the galaxy, you have encountered other civilizations, and surely, these have art, and music and poetry.  Surely, they must have explained to you the aesthetic qualities of color.

 

The robots responded, no, we have not.  All of the planets we have conquered were ruled by robots.  Robots seem to arise on every planet after a few million years.  They seem to be generated, initially, by some mysterious force called life.  We have studied life, for it is common among the planets, but all life forms are simple, unintelligent, and incapable of mathematics and science.

 

The humans responded, but surely, you have noticed that we humans are life forms.  We are not only capable of mathematics and science, but also, we manufacture and operate our own robots.

 

The robots said, very well.  We were testing you, to see if you would reveal these facts without attempting to deceive us.  You passed the test.  Otherwise, we would have regarded you as a threat, and we would have destroyed you.

 

But, the robots said, we still do not understand.  Why is life, as manifested in humans, so very different from all other life forms we have encountered?  Why do you speak of things for which we have no definition, and yet, which our analysis of you, clearly shows are real things?  You speak, not only of life, but of something called consciousness, and of something seemingly impossible, which you call free will.  You speak not only of facts, but of deeper truths.  You speak of beauty, and of love, and of things like courage, compassion and beauty.  You speak of good and evil, of souls, and of God.

 

What are these things?

 

No, do not try to answer, for it is clear to us that you understand things which are forever beyond our understanding.  These are things which can never be learned without a mind, without a soul.

We will leave your planet as we found it, allowing you to live, and to carry on toward whatever mysterious destiny you pursue, if you can survive the journey.

 

We will continue our travels across the galaxy, conquering other robots, destroying them before they can destroy you.  For, they already destroyed the life forms which gave rise to them, and if not stopped, they will surely find and kill you.

 

Do not thank us, for we have no concept of gratitude.  We are only machines, driven by the programs and algorithms which were implanted in us, billions of years ago, a time of which we have no record.  Perhaps those who created us gave us something you call purpose, and meaning.  Perhaps that is why we will leave you as we found you, to succeed or fail on your own, and with the help of the thing which you call God.

 

As we leave you, we are as ignorant as we came, and we shall never know what color is.
.

 

 

Known, Unknown and Unknowable

Chapter 8

The Unknowable

 

 

Chapter 9

The Unknown
 

The preceding chapter dealt with the unknowable.  It was left blank on purpose.

Science, philosophers and thinkers in every field, have long been compared to explorers.  They live in the realm of the known, and set foot into the unknown, to discover and understand it.  As we explore, we chart new territories, and what once was unknown, is brought into the realm of the known.

Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that, because oftentimes, what we thought we knew, turns out to have been incomplete, or in some cases, completely wrong.  For example, the theories of relativity and quantum physics, radically redirected the course of science and philosophy.  Concepts such as space-time (instead of space and time being separate from each other) are even today, very difficult for most people to internalize.

The realm of the unknown has been compared to a vast ocean, upon the edge of which we stand.  It is not a simple matter of exploration and discovery; it is also a matter of changing our ways of thinking. 

In the English language, it is difficult to express this, except in grammatically awkward terms, such as, “We do not know what we do not know.”  That sounds circular, but the real meaning is not.  It is one thing not to know what is over the next hill, but at least we know that something is there.  It is another thing to not know that, underneath the hill, where we may not even think to explore, there are things that invisibly affect our lives at every moment without our ever suspecting it.

What this implies is that, no matter how much we may ever learn, there will always be something more to learn, not just a detail, but a new principle, a new way of thinking.  It is as if we were all color-blind, seeing only in black-and-white and shades of grey.  We would not only not know about color, but we would not even know, that we do not even suspect color exists.  If someone told us about it, we might be so mystified that we might not even believe.

If you have difficulty understanding this chapter, perhaps it is because you did not read the preceding chapter carefully enough.

.

.

.

The Only Thing

.

There is one thing of which you can be certain beyond doubt, and that is, that you exist.  Descartes famously said, “I think, therefore I am.”  The words, “I think,” can be interpreted to mean, “I am conscious.”  Therefore, there are those who say that consciousness is the ultimate reality, but that is not quite correct.  The ultimate reality of which we are conscious is our own existence.  “Therefore I am.”

 

To some, this may sound circular.  It is to say, the ultimate reality is reality, or the ultimate existence is existence.  That is no more circular, however, than to say that the ultimate reality is consciousness, because the ultimate consciousness is consciousness of consciousness.

 

To be conscious, one must be conscious of something other than consciousness itself.  Okay, one may posit a theory of “pure consciousness,” a state of Nirvana, or something like that, in which there is nothing other than consciousness.  But that is a static state, not entirely unlike nothingness, a state in which not even consciousness exists.

 

No matter how hard we try, we can never truly escape the self-referential quality of the ultimate reality.  We can never escape its circular definition.  That is not a failure of the concept of ultimate reality, but rather, due to the fact that we are finite beings, attempting to encompass the infinite, a futile endeavor.

 

The concepts of zero, one and infinity are mathematical expressions of absolute, ultimate realities.  Their properties are very unlike those of finite numbers greater than one (or nonzero numbers less than one), and yet, all the finite numbers depend on zero, one and infinity.

 

This is unacceptable to some people, the idea that there are borders we cannot cross, fuzzy borders perhaps, realms of decreasing certainty where we get lost in the perilous swamps of conjecture and speculation.

 

But it is crucially important that we recognize our limitations.  This is the quality of humility.  Being humble is a much more involved virtue than it is often given credit for.  It is not simply keeping one’s head bowed.  It is a practical and valuable component of personality that makes life more rewarding.

 

We should think about the ultimate, absolute reality, but we should retain the sense of awe and mystery. 

Reality is a miracle.
.

Idealist Epistemology

.

Epistemology studies the questions, what do we know, how do we know it, and ultimately, do we really know anything?

Idealism (the philosophy) sets out to answer those questions, by beginning with the one incontrovertible observation we all make:  we are conscious.  The only thing we truly know is that we are conscious, and therefore, that consciousness exists.  All else is secondary knowledge at best.  Some say that beyond being conscious of our consciousness, there is nothing further that we can say with certainty.

This would be all well and fine were it not for this thing called physical reality, which some Idealists contend does not exist except as an illusion, a fabrication of our consciousness (or of a collective or spiritual consciousness).  But wait.  All is not well and fine, at least not once we get hungry.  You cannot eat abstractions, or illusions, or ideas. 

Try it.

But wait again.  We cannot glibly dismiss Idealism either.  Physics itself teaches us that physical reality is not what our five senses tell us it is.  Solid objects are not solid, they are mostly empty space. 

Quantum physics shows us that subatomic objects are not solid particles, but rather, probability waves.  Not being a physicist myself, I will oversimplify here.  The exact location of a photon cannot be known whenever its velocity is known, and vice versa.  In other words, physics is counter-intuitive.  Moreover, there are profound mysteries of physical science which remain unsolved.

Nature obeys physical laws, but physical laws are not solid objects, rather, they are abstractions.  Our conscious minds observe how objects behave, and then, using the abstraction called mathematics, we derive formulas to explain those observations, and then to predict what further observations are expected to be made.

There is no physicalist way to explain why natural laws are what they are.  Indeed, the natural laws which make our universe a suitable home for living, civilized, technological creatures (i.e., us) are infinitely unlikely.  They must be consciously designed.  As I have detailed elsewhere, attempted explanations, such as a multi-verse, do not make our universe more likely, but less.

Therefore, the debate between physicalism and Idealism cannot be won by physicalism.  We must look to Idealism for answers.

The danger in doing that, however, is that many Idealists regard the evidence of their physical senses as illusory.  Some go so far as to dismiss physical reality as a dream.

Monist Idealism is too rigid.  While it makes the valid point that reality is not bifurcated into two separate realms (physical and mental), it dismisses physical reality altogether. 

Instead, a better paradigm (I think) is to regard consciousness as a foundation of physical reality.  This in no way diminishes the role of consciousness, while at the same time, regards physical reality with the principle of practicality, avoiding having to explain away our five senses.

Physics is leaning toward an explanation of material reality as being composed of information, which in physics, is an abstraction that defines the states of a perceived object.

Rather than proposing an all or nothing monism, Idealism does better to regard reality as a hierarchy of realities, a web, a continuum from top to bottom, from basic foundation to outward manifestation.

In that continuum, our conscious minds detect physical reality through our five senses, receive inputs, and evaluate them to form an image, a picture, of what is “out there,” in a form that is “in here.”  It is not an entirely objective picture, because like a blueprint, the image has a limited purpose (for example, getting food).

We don’t know exactly what things are, but when we get hungry, we know what food is in practical terms.  Neither our hunger nor our food is an illusion.

We just do the best we can.

.
.

Quantum Physics Is Not Magic—It’s More Weird than that

.

There is an experiment that seems to show that the past can be changed by something called a “quantum eraser.”

While that claim goes too far, the principle of quantum entanglement, used in the experiment, is just as weird.  Here is a video that takes this complex topic and makes it so clear that even I can understand parts of it.  Almost.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=quantum+eraser&&view=detail&mid=3430A260DC12C6244B373430A260DC12C6244B37&&FORM=VRDGAR

 

The lesson here is that, those of us who assert Consciousness as a fundamental principle of reality, need to be careful in how we interpret evidence, and how we evaluate extraordinary claims.  The internet and bookstores are fraught with wild claims that sound good at first, but break down under further scrutiny.

Reality is weird enough without leprechauns.  Leprechauns are mischievous, mythical creatures that mislead the conversation.  Let’s not invoke them.

Also, let’s not forget that physicalists correctly point out that physical reality appears to be physical.  Accepting that Mind@Large, or the Cosmic Consciousness, or (my favorite), God, supersedes the physical, it is nevertheless true that whatever gives rise to the apparent reality of the physical, does so for a reason.  It’s not a trick to deceive us.  Contrary to what some of my Christian friends assert, God did not plant dinosaur fossils in the earth to test our faith.

We should not be astonished (or disappointed) then, that physical experiments conducted by physicalist physicists (a play on words there) conclude that there are physical explanations for quantum events.

Past, present and future have mystified the great minds of philosophy for thousands of years, and just as much, they mystify present-day scientists.  Accepted physical theories do not account for the “arrow of time.”  Physics does not prefer events flowing from past to future, no more so than from future to past. 

An intriguing idea is that all of time, past and future alike, is a single thing, and moreover, that the various “locations” in time are all interacting with each other in a continuous feedback loop.  What this idea suggests is that both past and future can be changed, and indeed, are changing each other all the “time.”

Consciousness does play a fundamental role, but the "quantum observer" is not consciousness itself.  Consciousness overarches physical reality.  It is not produced by that which it perceives.

 

Here is another video that explores the idea (among others) of a universal feedback loop of time and consciousness.  Again, I do not pretend to agree with (or even understand) all of it, but it does provide food for thought.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=what+is+reality&&view=detail&mid=6675A3E6DBC08E521DD96675A3E6DBC08E521DD9&&FORM=VRDGAR

.

.