Thread: Time Space and Causation

Yin and Yang 'n shit.

I have to say I didn't read everything... Actually quite little of it. =) But everything is relative. You can only be rich if other people are poor, and the other way around. Everthing is relative.

I hope that was not Totally unrelated to the subject ^___^

the thing you said about creating our own maya inside a computer in the future really blew my mind.

and not just the idea but the probability that it will happen

Forgive me for saying so, but your post is not very coherent. It's hard to keep track of things. You are attempting to make some point, that much is clear, but all of the argumentation and the conclusions are very vague from an outsiders point of view. That said...

When the three vectors time, space and causation combine to produce a resultant, we call it by the name real.

I can follow that, but...

When the time is a null vector, we call the resultant as dream.

Huh? So, all that is needed for a dream or illusion, is that time is not a factor, or time somehow diverging from the standard? What about illusions of time, where causality and space play no role? I will give you a very matrix-like example, the deja-vu. You'll have to elaborate on this to make it clearer.

Now on another note, I don't understand how you can make the distinction between time and causality so sharply. You make it sound as there are three radically different elements of reality, space, time and causality, but what happens to causality if you take time away, and vice versa? Space can exist without time or causality, but time and causality cannot live without eachother. So, the relations between these three are not all the same, some are nessecary, some aren't.

So it is clear that the only bridge between real world and dream world is only a vector of time.

What you've just said doesn't make anything clear. I just can't make sense of it. It's either not clear enough to make it understandable, or it's just not true.

Again another question of Morpheus to Neo, “ Have you ever had a dream that you thought was so real, that if you woke up, how would you know the real world from the dream world ?”. Many of us have pondered upon this question which we think has no answer. It is one of the many time wasting tactics. So are you ready to waste your time again?

There we go. It's not materially productive, so it's a waste of time. While you may just use this as something to add flair to your paper, it's something I'm opposed to, that whole materialistic attitude.
And by the way, I have an awnser to that question. You simply don't see the difference between the two worlds. And I fail to see how that poses a problem.

In order to clearly understand what is Maya I use the words of Swami Vivekananda, the Neo of the Morpheus- Sri Rama Krishna Paramahamsar.

Well, what he says is all very poetic, but logically, it doesn't make much sense. Logical contradiction is impossible, period. So unless he redefined contradiction and uses it in another way, what he says is false.
He also says that wherever there is good, there must also be equal evil. And that's all he does, he says it. I can also that for every good there must be twice as much good in another dimension, which is of the same caliber, and it doesn't make it true either. There's no proof to back up what he says, at least not in this excerpt. So I can't do anything with this but dismiss it.

The terms why and how cannot be asked beyond the limit of causation. It can be asked only within Maya. The question is logically incorrect. So we have no right to answer. We only know that it is there. Think I have written this and you are reading this within the same limit of causation of Maya!

NOW you're starting to make sense. Maya is the logical framework of the world? Well, great, but that's not a 'limit'. Logical laws are not imposed rules. They simply must be true. There's no truth beyond Maya, then, because without logic, there quite literally is nothing, let alone truth. You're trapped within the logical framework, but that's not so weird since the logical framework is a prerequisite for existance even taking place! So, I don't get your point here. We're all trapped inside Maya. Thank God we are, because else our existance would be impossible. Well, even more extreme, the whole concept would be without meaning, as would every other thing.

We humans are now experimenting on virtual reality. The research on artificial intelligence is going on. We know many strategic games like “Age of Empires” which tried to simulate human civilizations and have you ever wondered why the game made you an addict? It was much closer to real life, more correctly dream life. The subject “Optimization techniques” logically formulate the real life problems and there also you can see the very basic need of balance. So there will be a time when we will successfully emulate the human mind.

I'm sorry, how the hell does that prove we can emulate the human mind? I'm not saying we can't, but what you are saying (I'll be blunt) is totally incoherent and lacks direction. I get the feeling I'm looking at thought patterns here, code that makes a great deal of sense in your mind, but that's totally incomprehensible to others.

Nanotechnology will act as a catalyst for this process. Thus when we have sufficiently advanced technology it is possible to simulate entire inhabited planets or even larger habitats, including all the people on them, on a computer. There won't be much difference between simulated and non simulated people. And the simulated people are then living in another Maya!

Well, no. If I was correct about Maya being the logical framework, we can't diverge from that in another simulation. I'm going to write down my thoughts from what I see is going on here. You fail to see two things:
- The logical laws are something so basic, they cannot be constructed by a simulator. The whole concept of a simulator is impossible outside of these laws.
- Living inside these laws is not a prison. Nor is there more truth out there then inside these laws.
That's what, for now at least, I see when reading this post.

Ok..we are living in a simulation or what they are calling as Maya.

I'm willing to accept that as an axiom, but 'simulation' is clearly defined, 'Maya' still is not. I'll keep on using my own definition of logical framework, as that's the most sense I can make of it.

Then what should we do? Which way we should go? How can I do good to someone if it is hurting some other?

Well, here's where your post becomes ethical. And specifically, you want an awnser to a single question. What to do in a world where all good is met with equal evil? Now let me first state that I've not seen a single shred of evidence to prove that all good is met with equal evil and vice versa. So, basically what you are saying doesn't have a foundation. But for sake of argument, I'll accept it as an axiom.

But X + Y is not equal to zero. Since the neutral region will be containing some value of the salt which we don't know.

Keep in mind... If you say this, you say that good and evil in our world are constantly out of balance, and this balance cannot be corrected by any means. Also you say yourself (not entirely, but I assume that that is a typo) that X and Y are opposites. Good and evil certainly are opposites. So, if we go back to our axiom that there must be equal evil in reaction to an amount of good and vice versa, and if good can be defined as X, the evil should be defined as -X. And X + -X has to be equal to zero, no matter what the value of variable. The 'neutral region' you speak of, should not have any bearing on X or Y, as it is, well, neutral.
And I'm just not going to make any comment about the 'value of the salt' which suddenly pops in there. Last time I checked, salt did not have any impact on the balance of good and evil in the universe.

The programmer of Maya made the algorithm as

If X increases there should be a corresponding increase in Y.
If Y increases there should be a corresponding increase in X.
If X decreases there should be a corresponding decrease in Y.
If Y decreases there should be a corresponding decrease in X.

So, Maya is now simply that balance in the universe? Well, whatever, I've stopped speculating what Maya is.

When ever you are trying to study hard and gain first rank you are increasing the amount of X. And this forces the Maya to increase the amount of Y so that someone loses his first rank as well as the job he probably had got and it will lead him to ruin.

When ever you are trying to develop your nation it is increasing the amount of X. As a result amount of Y also increases and some other nation will lose its economic stability and money will flow to your country.

When ever you are smoking cigarettes it is ruining your health and it is increasing the amount of Y. As a result amount of X will increase since someone gets job in the cigarette industry and some doctor will get money for your treatment and some other can replace your job if you are dead soon.

Allright! Something concrete! I can actually do something with this. What about this:
You give a coin to a homeless man. You increase your Y by giving away your posession. You increase his X by increasing his possessions, right? So, Maya has balanced everything out. But wait, something unexpected happens! The man is HAPPY that you gave him the coin! *shock and awe* His X increases beyond simple increase of posession. Now to compensate, Maya must increase Y somewhere... But that is not all. The homeless man smiles and thanks you for giving him the coin. And you are happy that you have done a good deed! Suddenly your X is on the rise as well! Now, Maya has to compensate for this by increasing Y somewhere, and Maya does... Exactly bupkis (which means nothing.). You are happy, the man is happy, and the overall good increases in the world without there being an equal evil to compensate for this. Is this not what happens? The world does not remain in constant balance of good and evil.

It may lead you to a confusion. No need of further confusion. Take the fourth algorithm and examine it to get the answer. “ If Y decreases there should be a corresponding decrease in X”. This is the best option we have. So if you can decrease Y-the bad vector, it will decrease X-the good vector, which is the answer for our quest. Decrease in good thing will not harm us much if we can cope with reduction in the pleasure of our senses.( Pleasure and happiness are both different.)

And how exactly do you know the X decrease will be in pleasure, and not in happiness? All you can get out of this is a world where there is no evil, but no good either, with X and Y being exactly zero. That is not a 'best option'. You pay an equal amount of good for an equal amount of evil. You cannot remove all sense pleasure and erase evil with that completely. In this system, you will have to give up good completely to erase evil. You can also not erase, for example, the yummy taste of bananas and use that to rid the world of murder. Because these are not equal in amount of good and evil. You would have to get rid of love, to erase hate. That, again, is not a 'best option'. All of the world remains in balance any way, you can only try and make it more extreme, or make the world more dull.

So stop smoking cigarettes and it may also decrease X, but it is a better choice. Try irradicating poverty. Give the hunger food. Help the dying nation. Give money to the poor. Stop terrorism. And work your part. This is very important. You should do your duty. If you are a student you are supposed to study. It causes an increase in vector X and thereby an increase in vector Y. But it is your duty. So no harm will come to you. But when you are trying something else to increase vector Y it will harm you since you are not supposed to or programmed to do that. This is what Krishna told Arjuna to do the duty without thinking of the result. After all we have to live in this world of Maya. So continue with your work now and don't bother about its bad effects. If the work you have to do had came automatically as your duty then no harm in doing that. Always try to reduce the bad vector- Y.

This... is nonsense. You simply say, yes, your actions, be they good or evil, have no bearing on the universe what so ever, BUT... You should still do good. Why? Because it is your duty. Come on. That's not an argument. In this system, you are forced to conclude that there is no reason for you to do good or reduce evil, because if you do bad things something good will come out of it any way. That's the way 'Maya' works. So if I kill a man now, in this ethical system... Hey, not a problem! It's all okay, doesn't affect the total good or evil in the world anyway.

So, on to my conclusion.
What you have here, is something that may sound very poetic, but it is based on axioms. You prove in no way that we live in this 'Maya' and that it levels out the good and bad in the universe, except by three examples. That's induction. Even a thousand instances of induction do not make solid proof. There's numerous holes and flaws in your argumentation, and it wouldn't pass even the simplest of analyses. On top of that, it's chaotic and makes very little sense. 'the value of the salt', anyone?

I'm sorry, what you say here just doesn't remain standing if you examine it closely. It has no value as 'truth'. If what you say is true, you'll have to come with better arguments, because this alone is not enough to make me accept what you say.

Originally posted by Jalexxi
Forgive me for saying so, but your post is not very coherent. It's hard to keep track of things. You are attempting to make some point, that much is clear, but all of the argumentation and the conclusions are very vague from an outsiders point of view.

I accept it. I accept everything you said. Look at the introduction of the start post. This was the random thoughts of my mind years ago.

Thankyou for reading it completely and replying in a constructive manner. Even my best friends havent read it. And whoever tried to read it, said \"Its bull shit. Are you insane ?\"

I really meant something, which I think only I can understand. \"Known is a drop, unknown is an ocean\" . I am still in search of the meaning for this universe and about myself. So you can expecct more theories by me.

Originally posted by Jalexxi
So, on to my conclusion.
What you have here, is something that may sound very poetic, but it is based on axioms

It can be moved to "Artist's Corner" . Many others have told me that this is pure fiction.

Keep going. A striving to use logic and reason together with intuition to the highest of your ability to know, is what will empower yourself.

Hi korothism,

I read yr essay. I found it to be a poetic and sometimes slightly surreal riff on the nature of reality. I read it in the spirit you intended - a loose, brainstorming session on what the fuck we are doing in this crazy universe. I enjoyed some of yr concepts but the X and Y vector algorithm seems a ridiculously simplified explanation of the complexity of reality. I think you need to further clarify your concepts here.

By the way I am reading a lot of an author called Peter Russell who covers these topics of consciousness, the nature of reality, god, light, space, time and matter in an extremely lucid and profund way. I strongly recommend reading 'From Science to God'. It is online for free at http://www.peterussell.com/SG/contents.html (you might want to print it out if you are like me and don't like reading stuff online). He maintains that there will be a paradigm shift when it is realised that consciousness is more integral to reality than is space, time and matter. I found his comparision of the properties of physical light to the descriptions of the inner light of consciousness by mystics, quite brilliant.

Cheers,
Phil

Originally posted by korothism
Thankyou for reading it completely and replying in a constructive manner.

No, thank you for providing this, I had great fun reading and replying.

Originally posted by fluid phil
By the way I am reading a lot of an author called Peter Russell who covers these topics of consciousness, the nature of reality, god, light, space, time and matter in an extremely lucid and profund way. I strongly recommend reading 'From Science to God'. It is online for free at http://www.peterussell.com/SG/contents.html (you might want to print it out if you are like me and don't like reading stuff online).

Printing it out now.

Read the introduction. Intriguing.