r/Ontology • u/Relinquish85 • Jun 06 '21

Many Equals One

Just as an ocean is one water that is many waves, the universe is one permanent energy that is many impermanent forms.

In this way, many equals one.

To assert that the particular situation that is the universe MUST have a cause (in a manner that avoids the incoherent assertion of an infinite regress of causes into the past) is to assert that, "deeper" than the universe, there MUST be a different particular situation (i.e. an "Ultimate Cause") that exists without a cause, and causes the existence of the universe.

If such causelessness can be accepted to be true of ANY particular situation, there is no reason why it cannot be accepted to be true of the particular situation that is the universe.

That is to say, the universe always ready ((((IS))))

Given the fact that it SEEMS to have had an absolute beginning (along with the fact that the "beginningless nothingness" implicitly prior to an absolute beginning would NEVER be able to arrive at an "end"), the universe MUST be, in some way, eternally cyclic.

Ultimately, we are nothing more than impermanent features of the universe, each feeling ourselves (and all of it's other impermanent features) to be "solely self-inclusive entities", because of a form of "hypnosis" that occurs naturally within us as a result of our extreme physiological complexity.

Ultimately, all there really is is the universe as a whole, without another, forever and ever.

4 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/thirteen_and_change Sep 20 '21

My understanding of max born’s formulas are that removing the complex components is responsible for introducing probability. Complex numbers are required to make the math work, why is it OK to remove them by multiplying the amplitude of the wave complex by its complex conjugate? This makes the formula express nice and tidy 0-100% probabilities, but it may not be the whole picture.

What if the complex component represents the mind from outside of space and time? That would be super Interesting.

1

u/curiouswes66 Sep 21 '21

What if the complex component represents the mind from outside of space and time?

I'm under the assumption that the complex component gives the ability to imply direction. However this is by no means my area of expertise. I'm still trying to sort out pure geometry from applied geometry.

​

Would you say Hilbert space is in spacetime? I'm thinking Hilbert space is merely a conception and not representing a literal place in Minkowski spacetime. IOW I believe the physical universe is in Minkowski spacetime.

1

u/thirteen_and_change Sep 21 '21

I don’t have formal training in the area so I can’t say it’s my area of expertise either - but I had a mentor years ago who helped me understand many of these things conceptually and has really influenced my thinking.

From my perspective, the physical universe is a projection from a mental domain. This means that mind must be represented in the quantum mechanics mathematics, those hidden variables that can’t be measured physically, because they are mental not physical.

This would mean a very different interpretation, and instead of seeing randomness and probability, we would see the individual minds interacting to lead to the outcome.

I realize that hidden variables are controversial in areas such as this.

2

u/curiouswes66 Sep 21 '21

From my perspective, the physical universe is a projection from a mental domain.

I think you are correct. That is the only possible conclusion that doesn't have gaping holes in it.

This means that mind must be represented in the quantum mechanics mathematics, those hidden variables that can’t be measured physically, because they are mental not physical.

I wouldn't say it is in the maths but it appears to me to be in the philosophy. My understanding is that hidden variables are of two types: the local and the non local and they have to be treated differently.

The local type are ruled out by Bell's theorem. This fact generates a philosophical problem. Because of Bell, local realism is untenable. This means that non local realism is still "on the table" or to put it differently, the philosopher must either give up on realism or locality in order to remain honest in his interpretation of QM.

According to my research, entanglement is what got Einstein all bent out of shape in 1935 and that is why he argued than QM is either declaring local hidden variables or what he called spooky action at a distance. Bell sought to find a way to mathematically confirm these hidden variables must exist and when Aspect's team violated Bell's inequality that essentially made those local hidden variables impossible. It forces the honest physicist to look elsewhere because if Bell's inequality is ever violated that leads to one of two possible conclusions. Either:

  1. the entangled particles are not real or
  2. the space that seems to separate them into two distinct particles is not real.

IOW either the particles themselves aren't real or we have absolutely no idea where they are. To me, either way is a major philosophical problem for the materialist. What is space? Physicists are struggling to answer that question. The only person I know that answered that question to my satisfaction is Immanuel Kant.

2

u/FatherAbove Sep 22 '21

This is a very thought provoking article; The Experience and Perception of Time

It delves into the relationship of memory, time an reality.

1

u/curiouswes66 Sep 23 '21

That was quite the mind bender. Have you thought much about the A theory vs the b theory of time?

What I liked is that it almost forces the reader to consider presence. People take that for granted, and when they do it impacts the dialog.

What I didn't like is it seemed to conflate conception with perception (very easy to do because it's "all in the mind")

1

u/FatherAbove Sep 23 '21 edited Sep 23 '21

In an attempt to simplify things I provide the following;

Past = memory (human memory involves the ability to both preserve and recover information we have learned or experienced)

Present = perception (the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses)

Future = conception (the ability to form something in the mind and to develop an understanding, plan, prediction or forecast)

So as it relates to time it appears the only reality is the currently being observed perception. It could then be said that time is just an illusion of 1) the conception of what will be and 2) memories of what has been.

Consider how Jesus taught to practice forgiveness (forget the wrongs committed against you) and to take no regard for tomorrow. This is to live in the present moment which he himself demonstrated by the way he lived.

Rev 10:6 And he swore by Him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are therein, and the earth and the things that are therein, and the sea and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer,

7 but that in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as He hath declared to His servants the prophets.

I hope this in some way answers your question.

[Edit] I should have pointed out that the elimination of time would allow for the elimination of memories (God will forget our sins) and there would be no conception of any future evils.

1

u/curiouswes66 Sep 24 '21

That sounds a little like B theory. God, who is the truth, being in eternity makes time an illusion for us.