Nevin_III

Time, The Perception of the Infinite Space of Nothing

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Deep thought. 1. In the beginning there was infinite empty space? or 2. In the beginning there was infinite nothing? or 3. In the beginning there was both infinite space and nothing?; or 4. In the beginning there was infinity for without space there is no nothing...?  Is there time if there is no change only nothing? Is there time if there is no change only infinite space? Does it take some sort of time for infinite space to become nothing? Does the time of infinite space to nothing have energy? Could the universe be our perception of the time of infinite space to nothing perceived by us in our time?  To the point, Time is vector dimensional beyond the concept of spacetime or perception.

Edited by Nevin_III

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nevin_III said:

Deep thought. 1. In the beginning there was infinite empty space? or 2. In the beginning there was infinite nothing? or 3. In the beginning there was both infinite space and nothing?; or 4. In the beginning there was infinity for without space there is no nothing...?  Is there time if there is no change only nothing? Is there time if there is no change only infinite space? Does it take some sort of time for infinite space to become nothing? Does the time of infinite space to nothing have energy? Could the universe be our perception of the time of infinite space to nothing perceived by us in our time?  To the point, Time is vector dimensional beyond the concept of spacetime or perception.

No 3

The following may not be 100% correct but I guess someone will correct me.

Space is dynamic and is continually expanding due to dark energy and contracting due to gravity, both of which may be due to quantum fluctuations. Additional dimensions may explain locality and non locality (spooky action at a distance). For a philosophical look at space this link is interesting https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/david-bohm-implicate-order-and-holomovement/ The holographic universe projects 3D space onto a 2D membrane or sheet which could be regarded as a 4th dimension connecting all points in space. This additional dimension might explain non locality, but then it might not exist either

Edited by interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, interested said:

Space is dynamic and is continually expanding due to dark energy 

It would expand anyway. Dark energy accelerates the rate of expansion.

11 minutes ago, interested said:

The holographic universe projects 3D space onto a 2D membrane or sheet which could be regarded as a 4th dimension connecting all points in space.

If you go from 3D to 2D you have one fewer dimensions, not a 4th dimension. (Remember 2 is less than 3.)

The fourth dimension is time.

 

8 hours ago, Nevin_III said:

1. In the beginning there was infinite empty space? 

We don't know if space is finite of infinite.

Space has always been completely full of matter and energy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nevin_III said:

Deep thought. 1. In the beginning there was infinite empty space? or 2. In the beginning there was infinite nothing? or 3. In the beginning there was both infinite space and nothing?; or 4. In the beginning there was infinity for without space there is no nothing...?  Is there time if there is no change only nothing? Is there time if there is no change only infinite space? Does it take some sort of time for infinite space to become nothing? Does the time of infinite space to nothing have energy? Could the universe be our perception of the time of infinite space to nothing perceived by us in our time?  To the point, Time is vector dimensional beyond the concept of spacetime or perception.

The answer simply isn't known. In cosmology models for the beginning of the Universe like Big Bang theory basically all start at an event which immediately puts everything in to the Planck epoch. Prior to Planck units, moment of the event, physics do not apply. There are various models for the event or Initial Singularity but no way of expressing it until known forces exist. Anything per the Planck Epoch is speculative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Space has always been completely full of matter and energy.

As far back as we are able to calculate, yes. I absolute terms (always) we do not know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

As far back as we are able to calculate, yes. I absolute terms (always) we do not know. 

Nice nit-picking! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

Nice nit-picking! :) 

The OP itself seems to be straining to define the difference between empty space, nothing, the scale of infinite, and how it all relates to time. So I was just trying to be clear. I understood what you meant but others may not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I challenge the human concept of time, all things change in time. Or the change of energy causes a change of perceivable energy to be perceived through our perception of time. An example of the concept, a meteor collides with a distant moon that is under our perception destroying it. Did the meteor destroy the moon? In human perception yes, but in reality the first time energy caused the perceivable energy and the ensuing force that came to be, caused it. From the cause of that time the moon had already been destroyed. From the first energy that caused all other energys that caused this motion. Just because a human can perceive the in human time perception energy humans perceive as the meteor contacting the moon does not make the change a result of the time of the meteor or the moon.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     To Strange, As to if space is infinite i failed to get the concept out correctly. In the universe of your perception in terms of nothing and infinite both must be true. If your perceived space ended beyond it would be in your perception nothing, if nothing was present beyond, then no matter distance in relation to anything that nothing would be infinite. Also energy as perceived could not always exist, to state something as always is to state it in our time. To speak in litteral has to be, a time of energy other than perceivable energy must exist. Because the impossibility of existence beyond infinity and nothing cant be denied in our perception of time. There is no always in human time perception time, for time itself is relevant to change. Nothing was always there, infinity and nothing were always there.             

Edited by Nevin_III

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid it is not very clear what you are trying to say, but let me comment on this:

52 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

If your perceived space ended beyond it would be in your perception nothing

Whether the universe is finite or infinite, there is no "beyond". The universe is all there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept im getting at is exactly that. This is super tough to explain to other people thats why im on here. But in that truth I guess I challenged your concept of the universe. The nothing that would be beyond your perception of potentially infinite spaces' space is also a part of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice opening post. +1 to start you off thinking more deep thoughts.

:)

 

One point, however.

You made great play highlighting the difference between nothing, space and so on, but assumed we know what 'the beginning' is.

What do you mean by the beginning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nevin_III said:

The nothing that would be beyond your perception of potentially infinite spaces' space is also a part of the universe.

If space is infinite then, by definition, there can't be anything beyond it. If there were something beyond it, then it wouldn't be infinite. 

In current cosmology models, even if space is finite, there is nothing beyond it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nevin_III said:

I challenge the human concept of time, all things change in time. Or the change of energy causes a change of perceivable energy to be perceived through our perception of time. 

Perception of time, or energy, has little or nothing to do with physics. In most experiments perception is left out, because it introduces bias, and we use instruments to do our measuring. Instruments that can be calibrated and tested, so we know there is no bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this concept is a possible concept that there could be a time of "in the beginning of human time perception" and that is what we can potentially learn. The potential reality that the time of in the beginning of human time perception or the start of our time of perceivable energy has little to do with the early structure or time of our perceived universe but this and the known physics are just a concept of the applied active mathematical possibilitys of the universe through our perception of time. In this concept the simultaneous vector grouping of energy in time is the reason we perceive the time of the position of perceivable energy or the positions of subatomic structure causing our perception of a universe.      In this concept to understand the potential of inescapable time bias even in calibrated and tested instruments with the intent of removing bias, one would first have to understand the concept that the instruments are created to perceive energy in our perception of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

 In this concept the simultaneous vector grouping of energy in time is the reason we perceive the time of the position of perceivable energy or the positions of subatomic structure causing our perception of a universe.

Energy isn't a vector, and it's not a substance or particle, so it doesn't have a position. (The object which has energy as a property can have a position)

48 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

 In this concept to understand the potential of inescapable time bias even in calibrated and tested instruments with the intent of removing bias, one would first have to understand the concept that the instruments are created to perceive energy in our perception of time.

If the instrument can't detect it, it can't have much influence on anything, can it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevin_III

 

Sorry you chose not to respond to me.

 

Have fun arguing wih the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Energy as a vector, I agree my wording of the concept was not great. Although I'm from an electrical background so my explanation was more a vector in the grouping sence then a physicists view of the definition of a vector. Vague example [ { Cp ( 0^ {  ( (T^) } ) { (hT^) ) Tp^ } } ] I'll have to get back to that when im on a computer my limited symbolism is going to make the concept inperceivable. In this concept energy has a time position more so than the "substances, particles" we perceive in our perception of time . To say energy does not have a position is to say the perceived substances and particles are in their current perceivable positions from magic. An individual particle is in its current position because of the position of all the effecting perceived "substances and particles" or atleast the force of the energy which relates them . If the instrument can't dectect the change of then perhaps yes in relavince to its current effect of the current perception its infulence in relavince is small. But as for its relavince to the time of our perception it could not only infulence much but cause it completely. Ill get back to this, good questions.

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

Nevin_III

 

Sorry you chose not to respond to me.

 

Have fun arguing wih the others.

 

I'm sorry I attempted to answer your question in my reply to the other comments, i'm typing on a ps4 and am moving slow. I'll get back to you in a minute.

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Nice opening post. +1 to start you off thinking more deep thoughts.

:)

 

One point, however.

You made great play highlighting the difference between nothing, space and so on, but assumed we know what 'the beginning' is.

What do you mean by the beginning?

By in the beginning, I am trying to rationalize the concept of a time in which our perception is perceived. In terms of the universe in human perception the beginning is the process of time which the current perceivable time is perceived. I am trying to rationalize the possibility that we are in say a moment of another processes time and perceive the time, or changes of this other processes time, or changes at a rate of a different process of time and effect relation. That process of time is our perception of a universe not its cause or the physical we perceive of it. The real question im asking is do we perceive time or a time perception of a process from another time.  But im getting a different concept of your post. Im glad you share the concept of nothing, and I understand the concept of what is the beginning. I guess I was going for the beginning of the perceivable energy or the beginning of human perception, but to your point either probably have much to do with actual beginnings only beginning in relation. But the consistent time of infinity and nothing will be in existence regardless the time process applied so in the beginning in time there was infinity and nothing is something that cant be proven invalid. Im working on another concept check it out after I post it i'll try to make more sence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, swansont said:

Perception of time, or energy, has little or nothing to do with physics. In most experiments perception is left out, because it introduces bias, and we use instruments to do our measuring. Instruments that can be calibrated and tested, so we know there is no bias.

Being moved to the speculations forum was fair enough, but at one time a round earth was only a speculation. My next post is a concept I've been working on called "Complete Quantum Existence, The Perception of Freechoice". If not other sciences, Where do you want it posted. Also, will the science of perception with more references be respected as a scientific possibility on this site if it challenges your general view of science or should I go to a different site? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nevin_III said:

nothing is something that cant be proven invalid.

 

Agreed, nothing is the difference between an apple and a donut.  (The existence of the hole to be precise)

 

2 hours ago, Nevin_III said:

Im working on another concept check it out after I post it i'll try to make more sence.

Yes please do, young Molesworth.

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, sense. I'm not stating a fact or personal belief just a concept to explain something else. I do think that nothing is more than a hole in your doughnut in its quantum relevance. But I also get the concept of the general view of this forum. It's just not the proper place for this, I'll figure it out myself.

13 hours ago, Strange said:

If space is infinite then, by definition, there can't be anything beyond it. If there were something beyond it, then it wouldn't be infinite. 

In current cosmology models, even if space is finite, there is nothing beyond it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nevin_III said:

Being moved to the speculations forum was fair enough, but at one time a round earth was only a speculation.

Before a scientific experiment showed otherwise. 

Quote

My next post is a concept I've been working on called "Complete Quantum Existence, The Perception of Freechoice". If not other sciences, Where do you want it posted.

Sounds like speculations, if it's as nebulous as this thread. Please familiarize yourself with the rules. We expect a model, predictions, and/or some way of testing the idea

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

Quote

Also, will the science of perception with more references be respected as a scientific possibility on this site if it challenges your general view of science or should I go to a different site? 

This is a science site. You need to post science. Perception sounds like a neurological topic. It's not physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 There are no physics in play in the complex bioelectrical system of neruology let me tell you. But no matter I was just bored. I wont be posting anymore although I have thousands of tests and proven predictions in the quantum electrical system of the human mind. And unlike classical physics I can support it with undeniable evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

There are no physics in play in the complex bioelectrical system of neruology let me tell you.

The bioelectrical system depends on physics.

22 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

I have thousands of tests and proven predictions in the quantum electrical system of the human mind. And unlike classical physics I can support it with undeniable evidence.

Then it is odd you haven't presented any predictions and evidence on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post was a concept of thought. I needed help with some equations and was looking for someone interested in the concept. I should not have been so foward about time perception I got off topic. I treated it more like a social media conversation. In quote 1 you stated my exact point to Swanson.

Modern physics gives you "uncertainty principals" and "spooky connections" when you deal with bioelectronics in quantum deduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

Modern physics gives you "uncertainty principals" and "spooky connections" when you deal with bioelectronics in quantum deduction.

There is no evidence either of those things have any relevance to biochemistry or neurology (despite the desperate hopes of Penrose et al.)

And I have no idea what "quantum deduction" means.

28 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

I needed help with some equations

You will need to be a lot more specific than the waffle in this thread, in that case.

28 minutes ago, Nevin_III said:

I treated it more like a social media conversation.

That is exactly what this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The uncertainty principal relates to quantum perception of light when processes of h are broke down into biosystem understandable packets of physical data. Quantum reduction is the probably of error from classical physics mathematical equations to bio data or atleast thats how its used in bioelectronic perception science. Its a new field but im not the only one using it. I'm not sure how I offended you but thanks for the comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now