It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time and Consciousness are the same thing

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Consciousness is converted to Time below C (speed of light). This separation manifest itself through E=MC2.

What this means is that everything is just one now. Einstein said the distinction between past, present and future is a persistent illusion. This means from the point of view of light, everything is just one now. When things are in motion below C, then they're chopped up moments of this one now.

So Time is Consciousness experiencing these chopped up pieces of now. Time occurs because of the illusion of separation from the now via quantum fluctuations.

Each moment is an independent piece of now. We just connect these moments as past, present and future because we experience these chopped up pieces of now one after the other.

So Conscious Energy is all that exists and it becomes expressed as time, space and matter via quantum fluctuations.




posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


You could take almost anything and say that its the same thing as consciousness...you have to be conscious to perceive it and know that it even exits...



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   


So Conscious Energy is all that exists and it becomes expressed as time, space and matter via quantum fluctuations.
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Pretty much sums it up, huh? Lol

Love the deep thinking.... Love it!

For me the key word is EXPRESSED!!!!



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Einstein said the distinction between past, present and future is a persistent illusion. This means from the point of view of light, everything is just one now.

Actually what Einstein meant is that there is no "present".

Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.


A very Tralfamadorian outlook.

edit on 9/2/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
OP, you want to watch this:



David Icke, in my perception, is one of the most intuitive people alive today. Ive listened to him for years. Some people dont like him because of his reptilian theories, and he is an easy target for people who want to make fun of him. None of that matters to me though. The man is brilliant.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 

Or to put it more simply:
"Beauty is in the mind of the beholder"



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage , I think that I agree with you here, but I have to at least ask one thing.
Has there ever been any scientific evidence for what was once called the Aether , and is it possible that the idea has merit and is just something that we have not discovered yet?



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by PrimitiveWorld
 


Declaring himself the Son of God on TV didn't help him either.

Look, Icke was just a late-bloomer to hallucinogenic drugs, particularly the substance ayawaska. What's so important about ayawaska you ask? Well, one of the key things being that it is common under that drug to encounter Lizard beings. However, these serpents are teachers and instructors for most. Icke just couldn't handle his drugs, simple as that. All of the other stuff he's credited with, the time loops, extra dimensions and so on are all pretty much verbatim lifted from Jordan Maxwell and Bill Cooper (not to mention Timothy Leary)

Yeah listen to him by all means. He has some great intentions. But remember, he's bat-sh*t crazy just like every one else.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


Personally the "aether" that einstein talked about, seems to be space/time itself. As it is the medium that lights trasits in its journey.

Personally, I am more interested in the fact a strong gravity well can actually grab space/time and drag it into itself, and simultaniously drag it around itself, seemingly without friction.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Imhotepsol
 


Thanks for your opinion.


I obviously have my own but yours is very common and Ive seen it many times.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Ok , thanks for that , its very cool and I did not know the friction part.
That is rather strange.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I believe that you need to identify if you are referring to time as used in Physics equations (that has definite physical and spatial properties) or the PERCEPTION of time (which can be extremely variable).

Einstein actually said "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion". This does not imply that time is illusory, but merely that our particular perceptual 'window' on the timeline is an illusion.

Consciousness exists in the 'now'. It follows the focus on an infinite timeline and sees only through the window of the present. This view of the existence of 'the present' is the illusion.

Time is, was and will be.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


Ok , thanks for that , its very cool and I did not know the friction part.
That is rather strange.


Perhaps another aether analogue would be the Higgs field. The Higgs field adds mass to the standard model in that the 'stickier' matter is to this field, the more massive we say that the matter is, i.e: mass is resistance to the traversal of the Higgs field.

OK, now for my personal theory:

The first idea is that space-time resides on an 'under layer' of reality that we might call dimensionality. This is more a mathematical vector space underlying space-time, not space-time itself. When space-time expanded from the big bang it did so along these specific 'dimensionalities'.

The first three spatial dimensions are topologically flat, scalarly linear and infinite by definition. I theorize that this is actually the same for the time dimension and all higher dimensions (current theory is that the higher dimensions cannot be observed because they are 'curled-up' at a diameter less than the Planck length).

It is obvious that we can only perceive the instant in the time dimension and this limitation of consciousness perhaps suggests a mechanism that may explain why we are unable to see higher dimensions (rather than the 'curled topology' solution).

It is my belief that an exploration as to why we perceive an 'arrow of time' will grant us far greater understanding. For too long we have viewed time as something special and different, using different units and different paradigms to describe it. We should stop and see it in the same way as we see ALL other dimensions!

PS, the 'friction' of space-time is referred to as 'frame-dragging'.


edit on 2/9/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
So Time is Consciousness experiencing these chopped up pieces of now.
So, did time exist before there was consciousness (for example, before the Earth was born 5 billion years ago)?

When do you think consciousness first appeared on Earth? Was there time before that?



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



So, did time exist before there was consciousness (for example, before the Earth was born 5 billion years ago)?

When do you think consciousness first appeared on Earth? Was there time before that?


See Schrodinger's cat.

If you want to get right down to it - the universe for each conscious individual existed in a super-position until they made the conscious observation of it. This caused it to decohere into the universe they now experience.

Though that's taking a few experimentally verified tenants of quantum mechanics and running a bit farther with them than many with established careers are willing to run - but the reality is that Quantum Mechanics runs smack into the problem of "even though machines can be observers - those machines become coherent with the super position until decohered by a conscious observation" - which begs the question of what conscious experience is.

What this means, however, is that the history of the universe is both unknowable and irrelevant - as it is only a 'backfilling' of potential.

I like it because it explains the origins of life quite succinctly. The systems you see today exist because they were observed to exist in this manner. This made a number of potential origins possible - few of which can be known for sure (and in some cases - it would appear as if systems have developed across multiple possible paths simultaneously; a primitive quantum computation known as the random walk).

The probability of life existing is, obviously, unity. The course it took to develop is irrelevant to the fact that it exists in the current state it does and has a defined number of potential future states - as it cannot really be said to have actually developed from a prior state to the current; since the only known is the present state.

It's not exactly a comforting idea. Not only does it involve macroscopic implications of quantum mechanics (which throws objective reality out the window along with determinism) - it also implies that the conscious experience is ... for lack of a better term - god. Even more unsettling is the idea that each individual conscious experience can be entirely different.

Or, perhaps we are all part of the same intelligence - ourselves a 'random walk' through multiple conscious paths as a computational effort to determine the most efficient path for some end goal (perhaps unknowable to us).

Or perhaps Quantum Mechanics will later be overturned by some as yet to be predicted or imaginable principle - which would throw this entire theory into the garbage pile.

I just like theories that challenge the notion the universe had have an origin in the context of a "T - 0."



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


So Conscious Energy is all that exists and it becomes expressed as time, space and matter via quantum fluctuations.

I flagged your thread, but could not star your post because of this final sentence.

Despite the scepticism of Phage and Chr0naut, the non-existence of time is a valid hypothesis in physics. This does not, however mean that nothing exists except consciousness, or what you call 'Conscious Energy'. That conclusion does not arise from the proposition that time is a human illusion.

In fact, the proposition is absurd on the face of it. If consciousness is all that exists, and all it experiences is an illusion, consciousness becomes a hallucination experienced by nothingness.

It makes far more sense to say that the universe exists in all possible quantum states simultaneously, and that 'time' is simply a line you could draw through the configuration space of these states, connecting the most probable ones, moving from one to the next most closely neighbouring it in any direction you please. Consciousness may be that which draws the line, or more probably something associated with the shift of focus from configuration to configuration.

You will understand readily enough, I am sure, that there is no such thing as continued existence in this model; there are no time-dependent entities, living or not, only more or less adjacent phase states.

It should also be obvious that there are any number of paths through the configuration space: many times, so to speak, rather than one absolute time experienced by all. This tallies with what we learn from relativity. We have known since 1905 that absolute time – Newtonian time – is an illusion.

The above is a potted version of Julian Barbour's postulate of a time-independent universe. It has its flaws, but then so does every other model of reality we come up with, and this one, at least, eliminates all those quantum 'paradoxes' which so bedevil ATS members and inspire the woolly-minded to New Age flights of fancy.

You will find a very interesting fictional treatment of these ideas in Neal Stephenson's novel Anathem.


edit on 3/9/12 by Astyanax because: of time-independent typographical (and conceptual) errors.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. It never is...

What Einstein said, when speaking scientifically, was in the language of mathematics. When he tried to explain his ideas in ordinary language, he necessarily had to use wildly inaccurate descriptions.

For example, in one of Einstein's ideas, space and time are part of a single entity called, reasonably enough, the "Space-Time Continuum." To us, time and space are two entirely different things, utterly unlike. To Einstein, at least mathematically, they were treated similarly. It's just not feasible to talk of this using ordinary language, because we don't have that sort of notion.

We run into this with light having both a wave and a particle nature. In ordinary life, a wave is entirely different from a particle; they look different, behave differently, and one cannot be the other. In physics, this rule doesn't apply, but it's almost impossible for us to imagine any such thing using ordinary language.

This isn't (necessarily) anything mystical. We lack words for these concepts because we never run into them in real life. How do you explain what a mango tastes like, to someone who has never tasted one?

With math you don't have this problem. You can have something that has a wavelength of X and a mass of Y. You can ignore that this makes no sense in ordinary terms, because you've abstracted away all the stuff that would otherwise confuse you.

There is nothing to support the notion that time and consciousness are the same thing. In fact, scientifically, there is nothing to support the notion that consciousness exists at all. While probably no scientist doubts the existence of consciousness, there is at present no way to study it objectively. We simply don't know what it is, haven't defined it in any useful way, and have no effective ways of measuring it.

In order to understand what Einstein actually said, it is necessary to learn the language he used - which was mathematics. This math is difficult. Learning it requires years of effort. But without it, all you're doing is trying to tell others what a mango tastes like, without ever having tasted one yourself.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

So, did time exist before there was consciousness (for example, before the Earth was born 5 billion years ago)?

When do you think consciousness first appeared on Earth? Was there time before that?


I think there is at least one very simple answer to that. If time is an illusion caused by consciousness, then there *was* no "first appearance" of consciousness. No time, no five billion years ago, no problem.

I strongly disagree with the OP's claims, but the objection you offered isn't enough to disprove what he said.
edit on 3-9-2012 by baruch60610 because: Accidentally omitted a vital line in the text I wanted to quote.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


Personally the "aether" that einstein talked about, seems to be space/time itself. As it is the medium that lights trasits in its journey.

Personally, I am more interested in the fact a strong gravity well can actually grab space/time and drag it into itself, and simultaniously drag it around itself, seemingly without friction.


First of all, space/time and the ether are not the same. The ether was nothing more or less than the medium in which light could travel. It was invented purely as a means to explain the wave nature of light. This was thought to be necessary because physicists could not imagine wave motion without a medium for them to move through. The ether never had any other function in physics, never had any evidence of existence besides the wave-like nature of light, and physicists had to use all sorts of ploys to keep it in existence. Light has high frequencies - I think visible light has frequencies around 500 trillion Hz or so. Such high frequencies would require an extremely rigid medium. But this medium (the ether) was also so subtle that it had no perceptible drag on planets moving through it. So it was magically "rigid" but didn't interact with matter. And so on. It was the 19th Century version of the world resting on columns being supported by turtles who stood on whales swimming in a sea contained in... When a scientific theory gets baroque like this, it's one indication that a paradigm shift may be in the making - or at least, necessary.

Massive objects don't drag space/time around. They warp it. This gravity well is the space/time, it's not grabbing it. The well is the warping caused by the mass.

Also, you may be getting confused by the 3-D analogy of a 4-D process. In some ways, a planet acts as if it were a heavy object on a sheet of stretched rubber, making a dent in the sheet. But what's happening is that space/time is warping, time and distances are changing depending on their relationship to the massive object, and the direction is inward, not downward.

One danger in using analogies is the risk of their being extended beyond their useful limits. This is especially common in physics, where analogies of mathematical systems are especially common. Do not take these analogies too seriously. At best they may possibly be useful in helping you understand some abstract concept. They are useless for reliably extending knowledge. Otherwise, scientists would simply use the analogies and skip the math.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage , I think that I agree with you here, but I have to at least ask one thing.
Has there ever been any scientific evidence for what was once called the Aether , and is it possible that the idea has merit and is just something that we have not discovered yet?


As I hinted in another post, no evidence of the Ether was ever found. The concept of the Ether was developed only to explain how light could travel through empty space. Scientists observed that all waves traveled through a medium. Since the wave nature of light had been conclusively proven by experiments, then light must also move through some sort of medium. Light could travel through empty space, so there must be a previously unknown medium that filled all space and allowed light to travel through it. This was called the Luminiferous Aether, or Aether for short. I prefer the US English spelling without the 'A'.

The notion of the Ether wasn't foolish. It was an attempt by scientists to explain the facts they knew at the time. However, as time went on and objections raised, the theory of the Ether became increasingly difficult to sustain. This Ether had to be more rigid than any known material, yet so subtle that planets moved through it without any detectable friction at all. The Michelson-Morley Experiment showed that light didn't behave like a wave moving through a medium. The Ether's days were numbered.

Einstein didn't disprove the Ether. What he did was to make it unnecessary. Light, despite having a wave-like nature, could move without needing a medium. Since the motion of light was the only reason for the existence of the Ether, and since no other evidence for its existence was ever found, it no longer had a place in physics.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join