Time and Consciousness are the same thing

reply to post by Astyanax

I think you're a great contributor to ATS, and I always look forward to reading your posts.
That was a pretty open-minded post for someone with a byline of "mind firmly closed", so you'll have to change that if you keep making posts like that.

I did try to read the piece you linked to, and while it was somewhat complicated, and I didn't fully understand it, I do have some small understanding of what it's about. However the reason I'm not particularly motivated to learn more was the statement that it's an idea with no supporting evidence, which puts it in the same category as multiverse theory, I think, if I understood what I read. Not that these ideas aren't interesting, but the truth is there is so much science which IS supported by evidence that it's hard to keep up with all of that, and for me at least that's a higher priority. And given what is to me a clear reference to relativity in Einstein's quote in the OP, and the fact that very few people really understand all the nuances of relativity (not only in this thread but also in general), it seems like I'm not the only one who should be putting more effort into understanding concepts which are supported by evidence. In fact it surprised me to learn how few PhD physicists are fully versed in understanding all the nuances of relativity.

If I was a researcher making new science then I'd probably be testing hypotheses with no evidence to try to find evidence. But is "Relative Configuration Space" even testable? That wasn't clear to me. The multiverse idea apparently is not testable. Not being tested isn't as much of a problem for me as not being testable.

I think "Relative Configuration Space" is so much different from the concepts in the OP that it would really warrant a thread of its own but as we have seen serious threads about real science are often underappreciated on ATS, while fluffy poetic statements about consciousness masquerading as science garner more attention.

reply to post by neoholographic


I have found some dire misleading presentations in quantum physics in the tunnel diode
and potential walls saying by some chance the wall or hill is passed which breaks the
law of conservation of energy or just plain sense. The problem here is there is energy
available and thus there is no surprise. The lack of identifying the energy is the lie because
the oil companies do not want us to find it.

Hello, I am here to merely leave my thoughts, nothing more, nothing less:
To actualize concepts of reality and the understanding of the world, in definition of the universe, there must be a blueprint to the universe. We must think outside the bounds of our local world. And encompass thought as an universal tool rather than a mechanism of human behavior. We are bound by the rules of this universe, nothing is infinite. The wonderful paradox adopted by the universe. It allows the manipulation and exploitation of the universe. Nothing is able to become everything. We are bound by nothingness in the nature of our existence, of our reality, of the universal laws where we are a property of the nothingness that created us. This is an ongoing experiment by the universe whether it dictated it or not. Given enough time, events occur, time is boundless. Given enough time a god is created; given enough time the universe is understood; given enough time everything exists whilst being nothing but a mere subject of relativity. But this brings us back to the original question, "Why?" We were created by something very insignificant who believed in themselves. DNA is genetic coding. It was founded through the use of '___' of someone society would probably deem "insane" by the inclusion of drug-induced states and altered consciousnesses. Sigmund Freud was able to understand the discrepancies of the human mind through the usage of coc aine. This is my understanding of the universe; the universe is boundless and untied by any rational logic known to man, it is destruction and beauty – all wrapped in one bundle. The notion of the "all is one and one is all" paradox exists because we thought it up and ultimately that is dictated by the universe – a natural cause resulting in natural laws that govern the universe as we currently know it. The eternal paradox of the universe. A natural cause resulting in natural laws that governed the universe means that everything inside of it is a property of the universe. We exist on different frequencies too complicated for us to currently understand, the perception directed by our senses that we deem "reality" is a result of our exposure to the frequency of the universe that was embedded into us. The amoeba has too unnecessary of an amount of DNA cells. It is a singular cell organism, that is not to belittle it. It is resilient as it survives and fulfills its meaning to survive. It is intelligent, far more than us and it fulfilled the basic means of survival required of it under harsh conditions. The more of an "existential space" we occupy by thought, physical strengthening, and consciousness – the more we are required to meet demands of survival. The discovery and existence of DNA was deterministic in nature as it is a property of the universe. The occurrence was bound to happen as a result of the universal cause and effect that began from "nothing," and the interconnectedness of all universal actions that followed it. '___' affecting the consciousness is experiencing different perceptions; it is fine if you are able to handle the balancing of insanity and sanity in regards to society - deciphering the meaning behind states of altered consciousness results in uncovering the universal constructs regarding limitations and boundlessness. You see the different realities offered by the universe. If you were to drug yourself over time, you would embody the consciousness presented by each state; of course given enough time and drugs. The universe is the god and time is the parameter to understand this god. The universe is going back in time and as the farther time progresses the farther we are able to infer back to the beginning of the universe. We are reverse engineering the universe... I expect that it was irrelevant what planet we were born on; amoeba multiplies, producing millions in order to preserve its survival. It contains a multitude of DNA and was probably more intelligent in fulfilling the main purpose of life; survival. Given enough time, it may have multiplied and encountered harsh conditions requiring the adaptation to the environment in order to survive. Given that much DNA, it is able to reproduce to survive - now the interesting part here is that given enough "time," what is the probability that the amoeba evolves to a more "optimal" state of existence as it understands the constructs of the universe and what is required to survive by "intuition."The amoeba is nothing, and in thus it becomes everything in order to adapt and survive in the environment. In shredding DNA, a supported theory that is a ridiculous idea in itself because it was discovered in a state of mind considered insanity subjective to the normal confines of societal evidences, the amoeba is able to more effectively perform acts to survive on an intuitive level deemed by the manipulation of genetic coding.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Thanks for that, Arbitrageur. Needless to say, the respect is mutual.

But is "Relative Configuration Space" even testable? That wasn't clear to me.

It's a purely mathematical locale,

You create a configuration space whenever you draw a graph. Plot some x against y; the field of all admissible values of x and y is the configuration space (x, y). All possible values of x and y are, of course, governed by the relationship y = Fn(x), and when we plot these values in the configuration space x, y, we get a line showing the relationship.

We leave real space for configuration space whenever we want to accurately describe something in terms of the relationship between measured variables. You create a configuration space with three variables to describe the relationship between pressure, temperature and volume in a fixed mass of gas. The configuration space is all admissible values of P, V and T (some values are inadmissible due to the physical setup of the experiment). The relationship between these variables is given by Fn(P,V,T) = k where k is some constant. This is an interesting relationship because some values in the configuration space (P,V,T) are more probable than others.

Now imagine a gigantic Schrödinger equation, one that describes all possible states of the universe in terms of position and momentum. All admissible values of the equation exist in the configuration space of the universe. Some, of course, are more probable than others. Barbour suggests, if I understand him correctly, that 'time' is simply a change of focus from one probable state to its neighbouring one.

It's quite a complicated idea, with a lot of hand-waving involved towards the end of the exposition when he starts to talk about what this 'focus' means, and what exactly it is that does the focusing; his key point is that the apparent continuity we experience is a total illusion; we ourselves are simply terms in that vast probability functions, and we exist in superposition, in a state of constant metamorphosis. This, of course, is inarguable; at the subatomic, atomic and even molecular level, our components are in superposition; we are literally not the same being from instant to instant (or, in Barbour's model, from configuration to configuration).

You can read all about it in his book The End of Time, which I recommend to you highly. Whether you agree with his ideas or not (and I certainly am not sure that I do), you will learn a hell of a lot from it, particularly about quantum mechanics.

It's always worth remembering that science only models reality; it can never describe it truthfully and completely. Such an achievement is beyond human power; absolute truths clearly do exist, but we can never know them. Science is a mirror; and what we see in a mirror is only an image, never the Ding an sich.

reply to post by iamwt123

So your theory is that time, consciousness and the universe were created by people taking drugs?

Must admit I've never heard that one before.

reply to post by Astyanax


No, my theory is that this, the universe, is a playground bound by rules and laws for which we must adhere and play by. That is the extent of information I'm willing to release as the implications of that statement are too sensitive at this moment. All is one and one is all is a paradox that is true. Pure intellect and universal intellect is the guiding basis of my theory; the application of all and nothing. You will see it as Albert Einstein did and Nikola Tesla.

reply to post by iamwt123


The idea that various drugs enhance creativity is a longstanding and common one. There is likely some truth to it. However, one needs to question whether the possible benefits outweigh the costs. The answer is probably no for most of these drugs.

The people who rely on drugs (legal or illegal) to become creative tend to die tragically at a young age. Freud was an exception; but he also kicked his habit fairly early on. Interestingly, he never was able to stop smoking, even though he eventually died of throat cancer caused by it.

But so many artists, authors, and other creative people died early by drinking themselves to death or overdosing or whatever. Is it worth it? I guess you'd have to ask the artists...

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I have found some dire misleading presentations in quantum physics in the tunnel diode
and potential walls saying by some chance the wall or hill is passed which breaks the
law of conservation of energy or just plain sense. The problem here is there is energy
available and thus there is no surprise. The lack of identifying the energy is the lie because
the oil companies do not want us to find it.

The conservation law isn't broken. All that happens is that a particle appears on the other side of a barrier. It doesn't require energy to do this, because it doesn't penetrate or surmount the barrier.

The lack of identifying the energy is a result of its not existing. The oil companies aren't that powerful. Yet.

reply to post by baruch60610


You're post made no sense.

You said:

You throw around terms like "quantum fluctuation" as though you understood them, which I know is not the case, because not even quantum physicists understand them. As Richard Feynman said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." As I'm sure you know, Feynman was a theoretical physicist.

First off, all you can say is that you don't know about quantum fluctuations. You then try to use a quote by Feynman from 1965 to justify what you're saying. Again, it's silly. Because Feynman said nobody understands quantum mechanics in 1965, that means we physicist can't know about quantum fluctuations in 2012?

Feynman's quote has nothing to do with a Physicist knowledge of quantum mechanics today. Do we know everything? no. But you do realize knowledge has increased when it comes to quantum mechanics since 1965?

So, to use a Feynman quote to try and cover up your own ignorance on the subject, makes no sense.

Originally posted by baruch60610

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I have found some dire misleading presentations in quantum physics in the tunnel diode
and potential walls saying by some chance the wall or hill is passed which breaks the
law of conservation of energy or just plain sense. The problem here is there is energy
available and thus there is no surprise. The lack of identifying the energy is the lie because
the oil companies do not want us to find it.

The conservation law isn't broken. All that happens is that a particle appears on the other side of a barrier. It doesn't require energy to do this, because it doesn't penetrate or surmount the barrier.

The lack of identifying the energy is a result of its not existing. The oil companies aren't that powerful. Yet.

But I just saw a video saying the law of conservation of energy was defied.
You can't go against a potentials and say it just happens.
That is the whole bit why people think science is confusing and makes no sense.

Get with it since Rockefeller sold kerosine and still does for jet fuel. He has so many
layers under him and is far away from the oil companies management but he knows
UFO tech. WWII was fought to control the uber tech even if lied about only aliens control
UFO tech. So I might as well say oil companies need to control the tech that puts them
out in the cold.

Originally posted by neoholographic
Feynman's quote has nothing to do with a Physicist knowledge of quantum mechanics today.

Then why do quantum mechanics professors still cite that Feynman quote? I'm not sure you understand the quote.

Do we know everything? no. But you do realize knowledge has increased when it comes to quantum mechanics since 1965?

So, to use a Feynman quote to try and cover up your own ignorance on the subject, makes no sense.

So enlighten us. What have we learned since 1965 that invalidates Feynman's quote from 1965?

Kind of obvious since you have to be conscious to percieve time, then it figures timeis a derivative of conciouness.

reply to post by neoholographic


This quantum fluctuations seems only to quantum jumps in atoms that absorb or
produce light. Nothing goes on unless disturbed by some energy to disturb the
atom at rest. Quantum refers to electron orbits and their digitized orbits.

The Nucleus has energetic decay that has no quantum mechanism and gets the
energy from the same source that post above say does not exist. The Nucleus
is the key to sustained energy release as done by various methods.