Animus, Change and Affect

animus, change and affect:

let us begin with an aside, as to the schizophrenic patient who "hears voices", when he has calmed down, been released from mental hospital, it would seem that medical science, in the form of a patient psychiatrist, who it seems, always loves to ask the question, "do you still hear voices?" at every meeting, explains that the "wiring" in your brain has misfired or such, and that these are, in fact, hallucinations, not that you actually hear anyone else really talking to you. well, in retrospect, this just smacks of a form of solipsism, it is put that you couldn't possibly be talking to anyone else, it's all in your own mind, well, by induction, how could i possibly be talking to him, or her? what if the psychiatrist is just a "hallucination"?

i have posited, repetitively, i'm afraid, about the fundamental fixed, motionless solidity of reality, least bits of matter, which i will refer to as a "bit" henceforth, and so on. the sense of time is derived from the changes of state that bits "experience". change is fundamental, time could be described as an "experience". again, as i have repetitively stated before, "time" can thus flow in many directions at the bit level, "forwards", "backwards", "left", "right", etc., a bit can "re-experience" a previous state, e.g. a visual bit has been red before, it isn't now, but it will be again, just blink.

but to call it "matter", i have realized, is to convey as sense of "non-person". what if, so to speak, everything is "alive", has an "animus" or personality? do we all like each other? do we not copy those whom we do and refuse to mimic those we do not? when my neighbour was likeable, i copied him, when he wasn't, i didn't. so thus, sometimes, when a neighbouring bit of the same type is agreeable, its "affect" on the bit's change of state is powerful, when it is alien, or hostile even, its affect is not and the bit doesn't follow its neighbour's change of state. that is to say, bits possess a type of personal reaction to their neighbours.

CLEARCHARGE

The Shape of Space

the shape of space:

real space is not empty. it is composed of least bits of matter joined to each other fixed in position forever. and space is porous. it is inconceivable that it is fully densely packed throughout, that all of the surface of least bits of matter make contact with other least bits of matter.

there is the question whether a chain of least bits of matter could be in the shape of a loop with a vacuum in the middle where nothing exists. i think this is highly likely, as it is hard to imagine the case where this does not exist, space would look more like a tree's branches then.

certainly the zone containing consciousness, and the field of vision, seems dense. perhaps on a larger scale some parts of space are similarly dense, fields containing many points of consciousness, in other parts, more chain-like or like a tree, with obviously less connections. it is not much of a leap therefore to guess that where space is denser, commonalities occur, a common language comes about, etc. and so, to imagine it, one end of space is like, say, a field of poppies, joined by a tiny path to an orchard of apples, which in turn is joined to elsewhere by two other paths, say.

another question is whether some parts of space are so distant, that they have been little influenced by elsewhere, that there are points in space effectively independent of each other.

CLEARCHARGE

Theory Has Constraints

theory has constraints:

post partum in excelsis, motive interest can be explained by short term demand which naturally expires, in short success or solution might be adequately provable by equation or formula over time.

in the event that nothing can explain duration, only that the past prevails and becomes more significant over time, not that time explains everything but which that happened.

to sense what is not observable exactly is a criteria of existence and what is it all about anyway?

Se + Li + So + Re < WHOLE

CLEARCHARGE

I'm Right by You

i'm right by you:

in space, proximity or distance matters, always. the chain, the network, the group.

i'm right by you, i'm with you, and sometimes nothing else matters. the groups out there, they are so busy sometimes, and so are we too as well, sometimes.

well, i heard it man, and it seems true. in the meantime, guess what, i got a lot of things going on here, and good luck to you too!

we just started here, got a thing going on. thank you!

CLEARCHARGE

On Packing in Space

on packing in space:

on drawing speculative diagrams of what space might look like, considering the possible arrangement of least bits of matter, there are clearly two broad types of chains, single width and multiple width, judging on number of points of contact.

on macro scale, that is scaling up, personal space bubbles can so be considered as well. and why do we know so little about other people? because each personal bubble space is a zone of space where there is self involvement to a great degree, least bits of matter in the zone affect each other rather more than interact with external space. the field of think is closely connected to the senses and you can only know what you think. what happens further away you sense less, it is about proximity, just as eyesight declines at a distance. containment is the concept, obviously it is not total or we would never know anything about other people.

single width chains are perhaps rare, a blockade of transitional change or flow may occur easily. where there are multiple chains or rather where least bits of matter are tightly packed communication is freer as there are several routes of flow.

it seems that there must be vacuums in space, where matter does not exist. least bits of matter do not make complete contact with their neighbours. it is an interesting question whether chains could form a ring of least bits of matter with a vacuum in the middle, perhaps not.

as for personal space bubbles, a large one may contain personal space bubbles within itself. how alone do you feel? it is not easy for someone surrounded by other people in real space to experience solipsism you would think.

CLEARCHARGE

A Person and the Other

a person and the other:

the line of futile questioning goes something like this, why do i exist, of course, there is no explanation for why you or reality exists, you simply must accept that it does, that you exist, that other people exist, there is no why. for when does it make sense to ask why? the usual answer to why, actually, is that something came before, that before C and D came A and B. to think of all that exists in real space may boggle the mind, for you only knew so much at the beginning of time, barely yourself, actually.

in my case, as it began at time zero, a mist covered landscape, stones, trees, blue sky, dim light, walking forwards, in a dress, thinking, the sound of my name, this is my story. to deal with the personal in science seems almost a contradiction in terms, the bias in 20th Century AD science is that all is impersonal and that the same applies everywhere, only quantum mechanics seems to accept that the personal matters. in considering real space, composed of chains of least bits of matter, it would be simplistic to quickly divide up the total map of reality into personal zones, everyone in their own personal bubble space, space could look like a chained mass of soap bubbles, each soap bubble representing a person.

now very much hangs on the question, what is a person? now, i could see a lot at the beginning, i thought thoughts in my head, and what i saw was connected to my head. of course, i cannot see to infinity, at some point my vision ends. assume particle traffic between points in my own personal bubble space is high, internal communication is high. so what limits could there be between two people? the range of personal light? the range of personal think matter?

why are there many people? well, why are there many least bits of matter?

i admit i cannot remember thinking about other people at the beginning, at time zero. i held only myself in mind. that the population seemed ever higher with time was true, beyond what most people could think about. that other people are different in some ways seems true, if only in that they could not be the same as you yourself.

CLEARCHARGE

The Repeat in Time

the repeat in time:

here we assume again that a repeat in state of least bit of matter in space happens. this in itself is not a huge theoretical leap of faith, the world seems stable, the same colours, the same variety of things, etc.

it has been put that perhaps time is an infinite loop, that everything returns to what it was at time zero, called "eternal return". first of all, i doubt that anyone thinks this desirable, to imagine that we are all doomed to repeat every one of our mistakes, never to improve upon the past, this would be a horrible fate. second of all, could a repeat of the entire pattern of every least bit of matter in real space happen?

there are two theoretical concepts around the idea of infinity that we have to deal with. could there be, for some least bits of matter, an infinite number of states, like as are there, an infinite number of shades of blue or red? does each state of a least bit of matter last for a fixed interval, or period, each time? for example, if you like, theoretically, does Least Bit of Matter at Coordinates 0,0,0 always hold its State 14B for 0.005338 seconds, no matter what is going on beside it with its neighbours? put this way, it seems unlikely, does it not?

the question of this interval for which each least bit of matter has a certain state is rather crucial. surely its strength of affect over its neighbouring least bits of matter depends on this, the longer the interval, the greater the affect? and if we assume that the interval is variable surely a whole repeat pattern of every least bit of matter in space, over a greater interval in, if you like, Universal Time, is impossible for a period of, say, one hour?

CLEARCHARGE

The Calculus of Y = 1 + X power 2

the calculus of Y equals One plus X power Two:

if we plot X, like west to east, and Y, like south to north, zero in the lower left corner, and plot the coordinates of X = 1 then Y = 2, and X = 2 then Y = 5, and then X = 3 then Y = 10, we discover a line could be drawn roughly linking these coordinates that resembles an increasingly northerly sloping graph.

obviously, the area if we consider that, depends on the line and its distance to the X axis, so one could say that, the rate of change of area depends on the line drawn. logically, to continue, the rate of change of the line depends on the gradient at any point on the line, which is, a line drawn as parallel to the graph as possible.

if we examine the graph at X = 1 and Y = 2 the gradient looks steep but is obviously going to become much more steep as X goes on. Y/X = 2 and this seems like the gradient depending on how the line is drawn. notice that, ignoring in the equation, 1, that if we multiply the power by X we could write dY/dX = 2X, and that, if X is still 1, that dY/dX = 2. is that the gradient of the line?

if we, so to speak, if you like, reverse engineer that, to examine, how to obtain the area under the graph and, call it integration, we discover that the equation could be like X + 1/3 X power 3. think about it thus, reduce the power, multiply by the power, ignore that without an X after it. and thus in reverse, call it integration. if we let X = 1 then the integral would be 1 + 1/3 which equals about 4/3 which seems about right too.

can anyone prove that there are 3 dimensions to space? even the Universe contains a virtual reality game concept. and i've imagined how that works. imagine turning right, the empty grid of the visuals in front of you shifting left and so on.

CLEARCHARGE

The Metaphysics of Real Space

the metaphysics of real space:

first the visual bias, hence the 3D mechanical motion theoretical model, that what we see guides our way is true for all, but the blind.

it seems there are only 3 dimensions of space. but how is it that we can see and hear things at more or less the same spatial location around our head? is it because there are in fact more dimensions than 3? or is it that real space is so densely packed with light least bits of matter and sound least bits of matter in a variegated fashion?

or are there layers like a sandwich? a layer of sound least bits of matter behind a layer of light least bits of matter, for example? alternating layers perhaps?

if theoretically it is easy to call that, well maybe there are 4 dimensions of space, we however find it so hard to imagine that perhaps it's not true?

i am not a solipsist, the very thought turning to belief disturbs me greatly. but who does anyone really know apart from their neighbours stuck to them in real space? they say one little thing here can affect the whole world but is that even true? are there people out there who know nothing of me and for which i have no affect? personal bubble spaces may be connected in the sense that from least bit of matter to neighbouring least bit of matter there is a long chain but does one personal bubble space at one end of real space affect much the personal bubble space at the other end? it seems unlikely that people at the central zone of real space are solipsistic.

CLEARCHARGE

The Head Stone in the Land of Illusion

the head stone in the land of illusion:

and the head stone knew for certain then that physical motion was not real. movement was virtual, therefore material objects, the planet, the stars, the universe, all were not quite what they seemed. it thought to itself, i'm a lump of thinking matter that can see pretty lights and hear music and voices, that's all, and keep that in mind, for i'm in the land of illusion now.

how did it get here? dreams had become waking life. the mother in its dreams at the beginning had become its mother in the land of illusion. it realized that this was a world when the boundaries between dream and waking life were blurred. sometimes it thought, i don't feel real, none of this is real. and sometimes people in dreams seemed more real than people in waking life. the land of dreams lay between the old world of its past life and the land of illusion that was Earth.

and when will i leave this land of illusion, the head stone wondered. it concluded that like in the beginning of this life, it would start with an intense dream of somewhere else, for the land of dreams lies between all worlds.

CLEARCHARGE

In Your World

in your world:

"in your world that might be a famous person, but i've never heard of him."

is there a metaphysical significance to that? could it be that we are really living in our own worlds, our own versions of Earth, only it just seems that we are living in the same, standardized Earth, with the same people in it? the invention of the computer and the internet showed us what was possible first of all and introduced concepts that we could borrow from to better understand the metaphysics of reality.

"ok, what if this person only exists in my world, i mean, i know when you say "in my world" you generally mean the place where you live, the people you know, etc. and that's individual but you assume that the media is the same, right?"

"maybe it isn't. how far you can test it is doubtful too. maybe you could look it up, this guy you're talking about, on the internet, and show me that he exists, but how do i know that you haven't just delivered that media to me through some channel in real space, just now, by us being together? and that he really didn't exist in my world before, but now i'm with you, he does? if you see what i mean."

"so real people meeting each other involves some kind of trade of information?"

"yes. so it opens up channels, i don't know, i'm tempted to say subspace channels but that's something else on Star Trek, maybe "interpersonal data channel" is better. i don't believe in the concept of the external world so how else could it work? i mean, of course, the data channels are open even when we're not together but presumably they're even more open when we are."

"so say we live in a more or less standardized, common Earth. i guess for it to be 100% standardized, it would require some central "Earth supercomputer" and maybe that doesn't exist. everyone has their own local Earth supercomputer, like everyone's an internet server, so to speak, in their own right."

"yeah, so data flows back and forth and yeah, obviously you each have some kind of supercomputer to render all your visuals, everything you see, and hear of course."

"and maybe data gets corrupted, there are errors in the transmission."

"and signal noise. that could explain how we live in slightly different versions of Earth. like we all live in parallel universes. because of poor connection. but i had an experience, where i was waiting to meet someone in a public place, and they appeared out of nowhere, literally."

"that happens to me too. we were going abroad and we were in a large train station and my father had wandered off and i was getting worried because i couldn't see him and then he appeared suddenly, just like that, at a distance. it's things like travel where you get paranoid whether the whole thing actually "works" or not."

"and then i was upset once, very emotional, and then either the dvd player broke or there was no electricity or something but it wouldn't come on. and then when i calmed down, it worked."

"i mean you could explain it away as, "oh, it's all in your mind", it was just an electrical fault, but the worrying thing is that if the external world is not real, it really is all in your own mind! weird things, frightening things, happen when you are very emotional."

"yeah like machines break. maybe it's harder to meet real people, assuming lots of simulated Non Player Characters, not just because there may be few real people, but because everything has to work, there has to be an excellent connection between real people."

"i don't know. real people. in one way, i think it's more frightening. what if you don't get along? a virtual character, someone simulated, you don't really care, right? it doesn't matter."

"well i don't know about that. what if the NPC came from someone else's, a real person's, database of characters, maybe they're not real but they're just like someone real, and they would know how you treat one of their simulated people."

"my army of illusions against someone else's? i still think it's less intimidating to deal with someone simulated and wouldn't you convert a character from somewhere else to someone more suitable in your own matrix? i don't know. but trade is good, right? when i was a kid, i really don't think i could write that easily. i mean, like when i was 6, we had to write an essay each weekend on that week's lesson on Native Americans, one page. it wasn't easy for me. maybe i could write better in a previous life and just forgot, but it's like, when i go to a book store and see all those titles on the shelves, that's got to come from elsewhere, other people have done all that, my unconscious or local Earth supercomputer may be able to create simulated people and a few snatches of speech but it's hard to believe it could come up with thousands of different books."

"think how much your world has changed. and you're not alone is what that shows. there are a ton of ideas out there."

CLEARCHARGE

The Extremes of Thought

the extremes of thought:

"you know i can't say it's true for everyone, but i think it tends to be that when people think, they think in extremes, in superlatives, or that something applies to everything. it's like they add words like "all" or "infinite" or "maximum", something like that. an example, the word "god", i mean that gives the impression of a person who is all powerful, all seeing, knows everything, infinite magical powers, present everywhere and so on. or when people make generalizations about nationalities, or gender, etc., it's like, without actually saying it, they're still implying it's true about everyone. it's like a common fallacy of thought."

"well, "god" is an extreme example, it's just that the word has that impact, you know? it just suggests all that naturally. but maybe that's why people don't believe in god, put like that, it's hard to imagine anyone really being that powerful. i mean what if a lesser version of a god existed, like just people who were powerful in ancient times, you know, who did things that determine what the present is today, like inventors or creators, but then again, maybe you wouldn't call them gods, i don't know. i mean it occurred to me, i had this idea that maybe someone drew a picture of a cat in ancient times and then cats appeared after that, you know something more prosaic like that. but anyway, i think the truth is that it's hard to think of exceptions or that something is only partially true, simple thought tends to initially assume the statement is generally true, that it's qualified by the word "all"."

"like space, for me, it's hard to imagine that real space, this reality, is infinite in size. i mean theoretically, the universe, which would be virtual if the external world were an illusion, could be infinite but that's only because the space of the universe is not real space. it's far easier for me to imagine and believe that the size of reality is finite. i mean maybe my own personal bubble in space, if you like, is part of the outer limit of real space and i sense there is nothing beyond that, who knows? but there are far more questions about time."

"here we go. time is change. real space is made up of discrete particles of matter and these change. that's what time is."

"or least bits of matter. even mental things are matter. everything in real space is matter."

"so it's sort of like philosophical idealism for you but mental is material, is a form of matter, in your concept. the problem for you is that the state of the language at present assumes materialism, "matter" generally means something else, something that exists in an external world, and therefore as it is, mental is not "material", is not "matter", to a lot of people, if that makes any sense."

"it's just that it's far simpler to call everything that exists truly in real space, matter."

"anyway, at least some of these least bits of matter change and in all time is a set of states that these can have, right?"

"yes, you can't assume that everything changes. the question is whether an individual least bit of matter's set of states is infinite or finite, i mean, even if change is discrete, theoretically you wonder still if the set were infinite."

"that's confusing because if the set were infinite, it would suggest that time would be continuous, because if change were continuous, obviously the set would be infinite, but maybe not the other way round, an infinite set does not necessarily mean that time is continuous. but i agree theoretically even if change were discrete, the set might still be infinite. but emotionally speaking, would i prefer to live in infinite change or finite? i mean first, you think, finite, well maybe that's not so good, i'm being limited, but then you think infinite, well, that includes all bad things as well, so rationally maybe it's not such a good idea? i think the length of time a state could last also changes. obviously, like, we can vary the length of time between blinks, for example, while still looking at the same thing, something like that."

"it's like a grand tapestry of life where everything that could happen is depicted in one huge picture, that's what finite is."

"and the whole question of immortality and death, though. again we can't help but think in extremes, what is immortality? perfect health, infinite time, free from illness and physical damage, fine food, beautiful gardens, wonderful life, etc. again, it makes it hard to believe in. and death, my thinking gets very confused. first what would it be in a metaphysical sense? when something ends? well what is time if not everything ending and becoming something else? and if you tried to stay the same forever, wouldn't that be the death of time? isn't there a contradiction there? time is a killer, it kills off the past? i mean what could real immortality, that is the opposite of death, what could it be?"

"but time repeats, at the micro level, and maybe even as a whole, at what you could call the end of time. this time now, unless it's a complete repeat already, like it's actually the year 40 trillion or something and we've already done like 300 repeats of this life but we still think the date is 13 billion or even Year 442 going into Year 443, it's a time of great change in general. actually hopefully it's just a once through event, i really don't want to repeat this lifetime."

"yes. maybe time is very "thin" now and this is not to be repeated, like once on earth is enough, never mind having to repeat this lifetime over and over again. but we think finite, and then little, but even if time were finite in a metaphysical sense the numbers are still huge. but back to thinking in general, we tend to think the word "all" about statements, but time and space make a difference, like maybe something is only true sometimes and not others and maybe something is only true somewhere else."

"like maybe it's true for someone else, somewhere else, but it's not true for me. also what about overestimation, something's true but it's not really that important?"

"well that's a problem of the mind, we can only focus on a few things or even one thing at a time consciously and everything we think, it blows up in our minds, so we overestimate it's importance. it's like, something was a huge deal when i was sixteen, but now i think, what was i thinking? and the mind is a fickle thing, because in actuality, we forget, we can't keep things in our conscious mind, but that's just time for you."

CLEARCHARGE

A Sense of Progress in Time

a sense of progress in time:

"you might think, or rather like to think, that the world is stable, that history proves that progress is true, that time moves in a linear fashion, much like the timeline on a historical chart, but you might be wrong. there is that one idea of time which we entertain that time really is linear, the arrow of time and all that."

"but if that isn't the case, what is? the future seems different from the past. we learn from our mistakes, and so on."

"the essence of the theory that time is linear which infects everyone is that the future really is different from the past, in short that time is endless change different from the past, to infinity perhaps, or even that there is some catastrophic end to time, that everything must freeze or something like that, whereas that can't be the case. imagine a world like that, maybe i see red and blue today, but from tomorrow i will never see those two colours again, i will see completely different new colours, and the same again the next day, the past is irretrievable and life is violent change all the time."

"so what you're saying is because we experience the same things again, that we can take it for granted that some things are constants, that actually that the past repeats itself? we actually go back in time for a repeat?"

"exactly. which is a relief, don't you think? but it's not a repeat as a whole, i mean, imagine your own space in your own world, wherever that is, as mapped out with something like Cartesian coordinates, one axis goes out forwards from your body, one axis left and right, one up and down, sitting down to your computer, assuming you sit in exactly the same position and look at the same pixel of the taskbar on the computer screen in front of you at two different times, you may see the same shade of blue of the pixel for those exact coordinates, but of course everything else is different, your thoughts at the times, maybe your legs are crossed differently, etc. the point is we get localized repeats but as a whole, as in eternal return, perhaps never."

"your theory is that what seems like physical motion is an illusion, that actually everything is fixed in space and that each thing that makes up the stuff of reality can repeat?"

"yes, imagine if we were blind. motion wouldn't seem so real then, would it? so if time at the level of each discrete particle that makes up the stuff of reality, or least bit of matter, if you like, is merely a collection of changes in state, the question is whether this is finite or not. of course, if it were infinite, it would suggest that time would be continuous, would it not? however i posit that time is discrete. the question is how finite is the number of states that could exist?"

"so a simple discrete particle may only have a dozen or so states and it would look like it was leaping back and forth between them? there's the state at the start of time and it's like it's moving away from that and then coming back and then away again or something like that. but if the number of states is finite we'd end up repeating later sections of time as a whole surely, if not the start of time itself?"

"i guess so. though perhaps the time each state lasts could be variable. i think what gives progress meaning is the sense that things are getting better or rather even, that bad things have stopped. i came up with some of these ideas years ago, for example, in the 1990's but it is only recently that i've written about them, so it's like an idea popped into my head in say 1993 and then faded and came back in further thought again and again over the years but it's only now that this idea and others fully matured and manifested in this blog post."

"i used to believe a lot of things that now seem just wrong. so progress, in the positive sense, is that an idea becomes bigger and bigger until it manifests in a greater way. progress in the negative sense, it's that we stop believing in falsity. i can't stop thinking, are we more or less susceptible to false beliefs? it's so easy to be crazy. and it's frightening when we suspect we are. like relationships with people, what if we're completely mistaken about someone and their emotions or intentions?"

"it happens, but it's easy to make too much of it, i think. i am me and you are you, and we're all alone in a sense. connection brings a sense of immediacy that perhaps isn't that real. of course we have real neighbours in space and that doesn't change. it's all well and good to think about time, but space may be more important."

"like who your real neighbours are and what are they like? i mean, it's fine perhaps some of us live in a Matrix-like world that is Earth and maybe we "meet" real people in it, but what if the two people who do so are like 4 billion light years away from each other in reality? how does that work? it may seem like someone i meet is 4 feet away from me, but actually is light years away in real space and is just a hologram, in effect, to me. a real long distance relationship."

"you wonder how that works, is speech rendered accurately as to sound, or is there some guesswork in the system at either end?"

"and people are shocking. like you have in your own mind what people are like, but maybe that's just the people actually near you and people far away you meet are different, not what you're used to."

"the thing is, hoping to know everything about reality is like hoping to know all other people, it's not going to happen. the other thing against materialism, apart from the external world being an illusion, is that it makes everything seem non-personal. when i think of space i think of areas of personal spaces, beyond my neighbour is perhaps someone else who i only connect with through my neighbour."

"like what is the maximum degree of separation in reality? it could be over a thousand degrees! and what if two people a thousand degrees of separation apart got married in the matrix of Earth? wouldn't everyone in between know about it? or maybe the connection between them is secure?"

"but the signal, assume it's good, they might never know, perhaps. and maybe we're not aware of the communication traffic going on through us. but you never know, they might be a famous couple in the news."

"well it's always seemed like we weren't that alone here, maybe we live in a densely populated zone or we're somewhere in the middle of space. i imagine someone at the very end of space might think either that he or she were completely alone and living in solipsism or that there were only a few other people that existed."

"or that we are in a lonely area of space but that connection is great."

CLEARCHARGE

A Chain of Personal Bubbles in Space

a chain of personal bubbles in space:

"to common sense, or what assumptions everyone has to make, solipsism seems almost absurd, those afflicted grotesquely delusional. what's worse, if not true, if there were many minds, not just one, in reality, it's extremely embarrassing. i mean, it's like, too bad she's crazy, she's thinks she's the only one and doesn't believe i'm real, i'm supposed to be like a figment of her imagination or something. or he's a solipsist, he thinks he's God, only less powerful."

"well, it's not that hard. that's why you have to consider all the possibilities. either it's one mind only or at least two, right? though, on the balance of probability and all that, and what it seems, if it's more than one, it's got to be many, surely? but let's not get into what exactly is a mind by definition, what they have in common and if each mind is unique could you really consider there to be more than one? that's a mind boggler in itself."

"yeah, someone who can think independently, ok, to an extent, i mean, is there any real independence if everything is connected?"

"that's a whole other question. but yes, a mind can think. but how to visualize space? how connected is everything or everyone? i mean, it's like, i think things like other person at 80 degrees mark 7, four light years away, that is, again assuming that everyone is fixed in position in space, that nobody really moves."

"yeah, if space were densely packed, like thick vegetable soup or something, there would be like billions of ways people are connected, right? but what if it weren't? what if everyone was, like, in their own personal bubble space and there were chains of bubbles, different people, connecting people together?"

"so you could be the bubble next to mine or you could be 20 bubbles down the chain. it's like six degrees of separation, sort of."

"only the completely real, nothing could be more real, version. i mean it could look like a diagram of the world wide web or something more complicated, there could be clusters, there could be sections only connected by one link, there could be multiple ways two personal bubble spaces were connected. and so on."

"great. but i'm imagining it now and i'm thinking what if you could move your personal bubble to another personal bubble?"

"that's just the illusion created by light and time. my theory is that nobody moves. you'd think, in the end, you'd have a fair idea who your neighbours were, at least, you've got to know them better than someone 1000 degrees of real separation away."

"well communication is a wonderful thing, the internet, the press. but i guess you're right. where does this image of bubbles come from? i guess it's from blowing soap bubbles as a kid."

CLEARCHARGE

The Lack of Connection to Separate Realities

the lack of connection to separate realities:

the natural question when separate realities are mentioned is where are they? for we think about space and distance a lot. the key however is to think about connection. we are all here in this reality because we are all connected, and space and distance have meaning only here. now other realities may theoretically exist but there is no connection, never mind where are they?

think connection and lack of, not space!

CLEARCHARGE

An Examination of the Possible Effects of Neighbouring Matter

an examination of the possible effects of neighbouring matter:

though we may never be able to truly, fully "see" or know in a visual sense what is happening at the micro level of matter in real space, we can posit various ways matter affects its neighbours:

it makes its neighbours more like itself. this is the most evident possibility and explains how our eyesight works and how objects seem to "move" as the visual pattern or image is copied incrementally. this is how signals are passed through space, how we communicate, etc.

it makes its neighbours more different, as though, to use a 3D mechanical motion theoretical model metaphor, it knocks its neighbours off course.

it has no effect on its neighbours.

two neighbours tend to stabilize each other, so they stay more or less the same.

what we are thinking about is how matter's change changes its neighbours' change, so to speak.

CLEARCHARGE

The Push Change in Time

the push change in time:

here we are examining matter at the micro level. again we assume it to be made up of individual least bits of matter packed together. at its simplest, the theory is that each least bit of matter is affected by its neighbours in its changes.

the proof of this lies in our eyesight. as an object moves across our field of vision or even if we turn our head, a copy of each pixel is made by its neighbour, and so the image is shifted across. here, a least bit of matter forces its neighbour to become exactly like itself, as if it were ordering, "become like me!" now turn your head to the right. what you see before you is everything shifting to the left. now there are billions of pixels in your eyesight but at the micro level what is happening is thus. each pixel to the left makes a copy of the pixel to the right and so the image is shifted to the left pixel by pixel.

this is the "push change" that a least bit of matter effects on its neighbours. and so, at the start of time, time zero, a fated, by which i mean completely without human intention, for that came later, sequence of events at this micro level came into play. initially, each least bit of matter had its own starting state but was immediately affected by its neighbours.

it raises the question, would an isolated least bit of matter change at all, if it had no neighbours to push it about, so to speak? there is no changing the existing order however. all matter is fixed in position and neighbours exist and there is no changing who one's neighbours are. does time then only arise because there is neighbouring matter that provides a push change? perhaps matter changes anyway, but one's neighbours have an effect on that change.

now it is obvious that there are many types of things or matter that exist. it may be that we may never be able to know fully how these different types of matter affect each other, if they do at all. it may be that there is no effect, or very little.

CLEARCHARGE

Zeno's Paradox of the Arrow Considered

zeno's paradox of the arrow considered:

in this paradox, Zeno states that a flying arrow is motionless, for assuming time consists of instants, in each instant it occupies a certain space only and is considered at rest, and therefore the popular notion of motion is impossible.

now the general conclusion from zeno's paradoxes of motion is that time and space are not infinitely divisible, therefore that the infinitesimal has no real existence and belongs only to the abstract fields of mathematics.

again, let everything that is be called matter. it is matter that fills space. and we consider space to be finitely divisible. the simplest theory is that this matter is made up of a finite number of individual least bits of matter, each only one thing to be considered, and the smallest distance is the size of the smallest least bit of matter.

what time is, fundamentally, is change in this matter. and we consider change to be discrete, if time is not infinitely divisible.

what Zeno states is, in my opinion, entirely on the right track. if we see an object move across our field of vision, what is happening in front of us is that, pixel by pixel, the image is shifting one pixel across, in moments, to merely give the illusion of motion. because we consider change to be discrete, time does indeed consist of instants. at any one instant, for the whole of that instant, only one state of a least bit of matter holds, and in the next, it is suddenly another.

CLEARCHARGE

Time and Space and Do Things Ever Happen Again?

time and space and do things ever happen again:

again, posit the theory that all things that exist, or matter, in this reality do not "move", that they are forever fixed in their positions in space relative to each other. i do not mean matter in the sense of the current scientific meaning. by matter i mean everything that is.

it is time and the change in state of matter, indeed the changing image, that gives rise to what is commonly thought of as motion and it is vital to note that this motion is merely virtual, our eyes playing tricks on us, and very much an illusion. where people are concerned, you are always the same real distance away from me, our spatial locations are fixed forever. nothing can make us closer or further apart. in meeting, it may seem that i am only an arm's length away, but in reality, i may truly be light years away in real space.

thus lies the difficulty in thinking about reality. if you are fooled by the 3D mechanical motion model world we inhabit, you believe people actually "move" relative to one another, that objects "move" and so on, when it is all merely just a product of what we see.

but what of time? our minds may become so distorted that even change becomes hard to believe! it is all too easy to imagine a timeless piece of rock that never changes, a place where there is no time. it is harder to think of matter that actually changes! how does it change? if infinitesimal change is not the case, then discrete change is. a least bit of matter is one thing, then suddenly another the next moment!

look at the computer screen in front of you. see how it changes, where your focus shifts. notice how your thoughts change in your head as you read. now in reality, the screen, or what you see of it, is intimately connected to your head and to where your thoughts are. as your focus changes as you read the script, the thinking in your head changes also. as both are connected, we can say there is a common time across the distance between where you see the screen and your head. we say "at the same time". this common time concept is what we primarily think of when we think of time. we assume there is, if you like, a common universal time against which all local changes can be measured. everything is thought of as happening relative to this. but the manner in which the computer screen is changing is not quite what is happening with the change in your head. the key is spatial connection.

now our imagination permits us to think of unlimited events that could or could not happen. however, i posit that at the individual level of matter, changes may be very limited. imagine one least bit of matter could only have two possible states, A to B and then back to A, in perpetuity. all too often in discussing time, as such, it is thought of in the aggregate and common universal time sense. in this sense, i do not argue against that time travel to the past is impossible, or that events can repeat exactly, or somehow i can travel back 100 years in time.

i am merely saying that what reality is, is composed of a vast number of individual least bits of matter, that so to speak, can travel back in time, or repeat past states, all the time.

CLEARCHARGE

Time and Space the Individual and the Aggregate

time and space the individual and the aggregate:

when it comes to time and space we cannot really escape thinking in terms of numbers. how long has it been? how far away? indeed, the way we think of mathematics greatly affects our thoughts on both. what is the number 1 truly, and what of infinity? how does the abstract nature of mathematics fit reality?

we can think of everything that exists in this reality as one space, but we certainly do not think that there is only one kind of thing that exists. there are many different things is what we assert! but surely not an infinite number? i posit just as real space is not infinite in distance from end to end, neither is there an infinite number of different things that exist in reality. a "least bit of matter" is an individual part of reality, to which we can attach the concept of the number 1 and give it real meaning.

each "least bit of matter" changes on a different path to that of any other. in aggregate, we apply a common time to reality, as we are all connected, for we are all "here" in this one space. also i posit that, for time even to be measured with any consistency, that there are regular cycles at work, never changing, for eternity. theoretically, let whatever that runs the second have a starting position at A. It changes to B, perhaps then to C, then back to A, and starts all over again, forever. surely if things could never recover a past position or state, there would be no stability to the universe, things once seen or heard would never be seen or heard again? yes, i am saying that time travel to the past, in this individual sense, is completely real! it is aggregate time travel to the past that is impossible.

again, i posit that change is discrete, there are "frames" of change in state of a "least bit of matter". the problem lies with the mind and its thinking, when it entertains the concept of continuous change and the possibility of the infinitesimal. we can think of fluid or continuous change but we are fooled and we are then crazy, for that is neither what we are seeing nor hearing! matter changes one step at a time, individually.

indeed, has not the whole concept of the movie projector showing frames at 24 per second and HDTV at 1080 x 1920 pixels resolution been telling us something like the truth about reality and time and space, as it was all along?

CLEARCHARGE