Published in philoso.philica.com
By changing the axiom of time, we affect both physics and science in general, thus raising some remarkably fascinating questions, for example, what is thought, what lives, what is consciousness.
What is time?
Every era lays stress upon time, and the concept of time has also changed with the development of science. At first, time was associated with the visible passage of the sun, later with the rotation of the Earth. Still later, this blossomed into the notion that time is what we measure as time. On the subject of measuring time, we began with the sundial, then later used the mechanical clock. Now we have atomic clocks, but the essence is still the same. Clocks measure change. Something in the clock’s mechanism must change if time is passing.
The sundial appears to be merely a rod stuck in the ground. Actually, it is a device made up of four elements including the Earth, the Sun, and the rod. These alone, however, would not indicate time if the Earth and Sun in relation to each other remained constant. That is, the sundial has a fourth, secret, and most important component: motion.
A wall clock with a spring is made up of more than four components, but the most important feature here again is motion. One component moves in relation to another. If not, then time is immeasurable and inconceivable.
An atomic clock is built upon the detection of particles, the motion of atomic particles.
Whatever clock we speak of, in every case, the perception and measurement of time is the perception of change, motion.
From this arises one part of time’s new definition: time is perceived change, no matter who or what perceives it.(Physicists don't call it "perceive change" but action-reaction phenomena.)
Therefore, time is always built upon change, but in the case of clocks that are traveling at different speeds, the times they indicated differ. Theory of Relativity [1.] proves that if a clock moves (in relation to us), the components inside the clock do not change, but something new presents itself. The timepiece in motion will run slowly. For instance, if there is a spaceship moving at a great speed (in relation to our own), the clock on the wall of the spaceship will indicate the passage of less time than the clock on our wall at home. Those who progress more quickly through space, progress more slowly through time. It is this interrelation between time and space that led scientists to suppose that time is another dimension just like space, and this is common knowledge to this day. It is possible to progress through it or not progress through it. Physicists believe, for example, that light does not progress through time. Some physicists, sci-fi writers, and Hollywood screenwriters postulate that one can even travel back in time. Yet, only films stars have managed to do this so far, and only exclusively in their movies.
The interrelationship between time and space is best expressed by the term space-time continuum. Space has three dimensions, and time is one-dimensional, so the space-time continuum has four dimensions. (In superstring theories space have at least 9 dimensions, time has 1 or more dimensions.)
This space-time category resolves many questions, but it is incapable of dealing with many other questions. It is like an excellent instrument – say, a guitar. There are many songs one can play on a guitar, but even more that cannot be played. The other songs exist, only the guitar cannot perform them. This is just like space-time continuum. It is a wonderful instrument, but there are a good many songs that cannot be played in space-time.
Where can we play these songs? Where time has no dimension. Where the meaning of time takes on a new definition. Where time is perceived change.
What is SMALL? What is BIG?
Almost one hundred years ago, Heisenberg [2.] created the uncertainty principle named after him. It largely shows that there are phenomena in our world — matter — that we can observe, because they are large enough; and there are phenomena — matter, too — that we theoretically cannot precisely observe, because they are excessively small. Matter is in these cases mass and energy. Actually, there is a third category. These are phenomena that we cannot perceive at all (neither precisely, nor imprecisely), because they have so small energy. This third category has two sets - space and unknown matter which is neither mass nor energy in the common meaning. In the following, I will refer to matter everything that is not space. Space is no matter. Where there is space, there is no matter; and where there is matter, there is no space. There is no point in the world that is empty, as either matter or space occupies it. In other words, matter is always bordered by space. If we want to definite the space more exact we may do using physics. See [3.].
When matter and space meet, an action-reaction pair comes into existence. If this is an action, a change that matter can perceive, then on the matter scale, time comes into being! If the change (reaction) is perceived by space, then time comes into being on the space scale. (According to the today's physics space has no time.) In the following, I will only deal with matter's time.
To stress that space is space and time for matter, I call it SMALL. And if we stress that matter is matter and time for space we can call it BIG. In other words, time is a co-operation of matter and space.
We know from quantum physics that BIG particles constantly vibrate. This means that SMALL, too, must be in constant vibration. Vibration here refers to how BIG strikes SMALL – sometimes forcefully, sometimes more gently – and these forceful and gentle strikes alternate regularly. That is, this periodicity is always present on the BIG scale.
Time is perceived change. Perception here means that the change has an effect. BIG affects SMALL, and SMALL affects BIG. Time consists of the meeting points between SMALL and BIG. Time's one unit made up of a gentle strike and a forceful strike. Each new gentle strike is followed by a new forceful strike and so on. Time is a consequence of the interaction of SMALL and BIG.
Since BIG cannot exist without exerting some action upon SMALL, BIG and its every movement constitutes a reaction in SMALL. It is just like a couple waltzing. The man’s movement leads the woman. If BIG changes, there is a trace of that change in SMALL. Yet, it can also work the other way. If the woman does not follow the man’s lead, the man must adjust. If SMALL changes, by necessity, BIG must change as well.
On the basis of this, we may establish three factors of time. We need a body in motion, we need another body which the first body moves in relation to, and we need the first body or the second body to perceive that motion.
In the traditional concept of measuring time, the first body is always matter, and the second body is always matter. The measuring seems to glue the time with matter (or just with masses). This is the limit of the concept. The world is restricted to matter; whereas, the world is made up of BIG and SMALL.
Time vibrations are quantifiable. The basic unit of time is one period of its vibration. If we want to measure it in minutes or in days, it is possible. [3.] We can say how many vibrations occur in a minute. It is a very great number. We can also calculate how fast these vibrations spread through space. That is, we can even calculate the speed of time. How great is the speed? Astronomical. It is practically inconceivable, but I will try. The diameter of the visible Universe is roughly 93 billion light years. Light would need 93 billion years to cover this distance. For time, it would take 2,6 ×10-34 seconds. In other words, whereas in that duration, light could not cover a distance the size of a pinpoint, time could traverse the universe “end to end” several million times.
A decisive majority of the changes that happen in SMALL (immeasurable in themselves) are lost, or they are merely incomprehensible in terms of space-time continuum. If we understand time as a phenomenon that exists in and of itself, that is much like blaming the television set for broadcasting stupid quiz programs.
What is thought?
Essentially, human thought would remain a mystery without the introduction of SMALL and BIG. What is thought?
Many believe that thought is an electric signal. Is thought itself an electric signal? I can give a definite answer to that. The answer is no. Thought is not just electric signals. Thought is a series of signals flowing along a certain “secret channel,” leaving your head and racing somewhere with staggering speed.
Sufficient proof of this is provided by a Lajtner Machine. A Lajtner Machine is nothing other than a simple object operated by thoughts. Without thoughts, they cannot work at all. They move if the force of thought acts upon them. The Lajtner Machine is a real object that can be moved by thoughts. [4.] If we stare at it from a distance, the Lajtner Machine will begin to move. That is, thought possesses an energy (force) that is focusable. Thought changes the wavelengths of vibrations in SMALL. That is, thought alters space and time! This statement can be proven with a Lajtner Machine.
It is possible to use thought to make the Lajtner Machine move, because Newton’s 2nd Law [5.] is in operation.[6.] According to this, the Lajtner Machine moves because of changes in the surrounding space and time by virtue of the force of thought. It is the embodiment of the force of thought. The Lajtner Machine reveals thought in its true form. Humans need only think “Move”, and the object moves. If the thought is “Push”, the Lajtner Machine is pushed - hence, the thought “Push” is visible. In other words, the Lajtner Machine shows that thoughts exist as thoughts when they leave the head (or not).
Every thought is some kind of adjustment in time. Hence, those who control time, control your thoughts; and those who think, control time. The great speed of time generates a paradox: The whole is world in your thoughts, and your thoughts are in the whole world.
Where are the laws of nature?
Time is a fast and continuous force that is always present in every BIG. It is a constant series of signals which BIG can conform to and does conform to. The only condition of this is that all elementary particles have an algorithm. Thus, the “laws of nature” are no longer “anywhere.” They are regulated by the distinct algorithms that can be described. See a good sketch in [4.]. The first command in the algorithm is "stay alive". This means, the smallest structure build biggest structures to get more protections. These bigger structure is useful as long as the existence of the smaller part is safe. Please see Picture 1.
Picture 1. Staying alive. (Model, not proportional.)
The arrow shows the growing force of the environment
(for example temperature), the white object are the tiniest object
that are able to exist as BIG. This model is very simple,
it shows the most important command of the algorithms: "Stay alive!".
This is a very simple rule and does not work without to understand the role of BIG and SMALL. BIG and SMALL, both want to stay alive. Without SMALL there is no BIG, without BIG, there is no SMALL. They need each others. Even time wants to stay alive. Without time there is no SMALL and no BIG.
Why is useful to build green and red objects? Because the white BIG particles have the lowest energy. The white BIG particle has the greatest chance to be transformed into SMALL and lost as BIG. Forming a group means growing the safety. The energy (force) of the red object is much higher than a single white particle, that is, a red or a green object cannot disappear in the SMALL. They are simple too big.
Where are algorithms? In the particle. What runs this algorithm? The wave of space, in other words, the time. Time runs the algorithms of BIG (and the algorithms of SMALL).
How do the white particles decide to build or unfold the red formation? They vote. Their algorithms exist as force, so the sum of force is the outcome of the voting. And now there is an important question: What has algorithm? Just the white objects? Or the green and red, too? To answer this question is important. The answer will tell us, what lives.
That which lives, operates on the basis of at least one more algorithm than the number of elementary particles and living elements it is composed of, and at least that many algorithms that receive input from SMALL.[4.] Further, any two interdependent component parts that make up the being must be within a given distance. How much are these given distances? In the case of beings made up of water and carbon compounds (such as grass, trees, flowers, and you), these values can be calculated.
But who said that life could only be carbon and water-based? We have only seen that type so far, but the world is vast. Moreover, the essential condition of life (as explained above) does not depend on carbon and water. Thus, the given distances could be different from those that we encounter on Earth. The definition above holds true for everything that exists in BIG – even for Martians, if they exist! If they do not, they may now bring themselves into existence on the basis of the definition!
Picture 2. What lives? (Model, not proportional.) The white squares have algorithms.
The yellow triangle lives, because its have an autonomous algorithm as triangle, too.
The blue line shows this autonomous algorithm.
The green triangle has not autonomous algorithm, it contains just the algorithms of the white particles.
The yellow triangle works using the blue algorithm. The green triangle is the sum of the white particles.
Are the computer programs living? No. The input of a software comes always from the BIG.
There is no computer software today that has a SMALL input as a "computer program". Life needs SMALL.
Bringing together everything now into a single sentence, life could have existed even billions of years before the formation of our world, our galaxy, or our planet.
What is consciousness?
Consciousness can be created when traces of SMALL of the algorithm run themselves through the algorithm. Many runs mean many results. Consciousness can then come about if the original matter (mass) is capable of recording some of the results from these runs. That is, the results are capable of bringing about material structures within their own systems – for example, changing vibrations in one component part. A body of matter organizing the distinct vibration can itself become distinct, but not necessarily.
A brain (or nervous system, at least) takes shape when these vibrations being created in the mass have physical outcroppings that become distinct. The ongoing vibrations of these distinct parts exert such force on the chosen algorithm that the algorithm forces the mass to make a move that corresponds to these kinds of vibration. This sometimes supercedes the basic necessities of the “survival reflex.” The essential condition for this is when following the principle of “survival reflex” should remain in harmony with the current state of the environment – so that the imperative to remain alive does not manifest itself so strongly as to push aside all the signals in the algorithm.
Human awareness comes about when the stored patterns fashion further patterns which have such a strong influence over the algorithm that it makes the matter (mass) obey patterns extrapolated from previous patterns. Hence, the fundamental algorithm, in this case, produces patterns from reflections upon external stimuli and its own reflections in SMALL, then produces more patterns out of the new ones. The algorithm recognizes these new patterns as input like any other. However, its constant presence redeems it, and as a result, a change occurs in the algorithm’s output which the matter (mass) must perform. This performance is essentially following and giving shape to the pattern. In this sense, giving shape to the pattern can manifest itself in motion, but other new patterns can be created, too.
Is this conception in harmony with life as a process? Indeed, and highly so. At the end of the DNA strand is a place for information storage. Its role is information storage and delivery. This means it has an algorithm, and on the basis of this, it works as an independent unit. According to my definition above, this autonomous unit lives, and live it does, not just in my definition! Where do the living store this algorithm? In matter, in compounds, and in molecules. If DNA continuously deals with this matter (i.e., these compounds and molecules), then traces of the process are continuously brought into existence in SMALL. Our brain perceives this, senses it, and automatically makes use of it. For the mind, it is simply more input to be processed among other sources of input.
The operation of life and consciousness may come about through other information storage systems, not just DNA. Consequently, consciousness is not necessarily the sole province of Earth-dwellers. We know of this type, but other forms of life could have consciousness.
Is there life in SMALL?
The question is unavoidable. Could there be life in SMALL? Could “living” in SMALL mean the very same thing as living in BIG? Evidently, no. Nonetheless, I stand by my earlier definition here, too. On the basis of that, life is also possible on the Universe’s SMALL side.
What is more, there is such life! BIG is always surrounded by SMALL. If SMALL encircles the living, then SMALL itself can be considered living, because the definition still holds.
Could awareness exist in SMALL, in the texture of SMALL? Yes. After all, a trace of our consciousness (this is a given portion of it) is always present in SMALL. Is SMALL’s consciousness also independent? Perhaps. One thing is certain. SMALL could possess awareness. It is capable of storing information. Why, it is even capable of storing thought.
Thus, SMALL can even bring about the existence of "intelligent" life.
[1.] Einstein, A. (1905) Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. (Annalen der Physik und Chemie. 17, S. 891–921.)
[2.] Heisenberg, W. (1927) Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, (Zeitschrift für Physik 43 (3-4) 172-198.)
[3.] Lajtner, T. (2014) What is time; or, How old is one meter? (http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=444)
[4.] Lajtner, T. (2014) It that all? (Manuscript of a Book)
[5.] Newton I. (1687) Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
[6.] Lajtner, T. (2014) Why Does Love Attract? (http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=449)
Information about this Article
This Article has not yet been peer-reviewed
This Article was published on 1st January, 2015 at 20:14:13 and has been viewed 1913 times.