Response to Scientific American: A Matter of Time.


I was very intrigued by your recent article on time, I wanted to respond to it in my own terms or thought technology as I like to refer to it.  Since time seems to disappear from the formulas of theorists and doesn’t appear necessary to exist many people in the scientific and physics communities believe that it is an illusion.  Time doesn’t necessarily need to exist.


Albert Einstein Quotes Wallpapers3[15]

Why does the human experience exist?

This is how I want to approach the subject.  To quote myself, “All humans have finite capacity, if they had infinite capacity they would be the universe.”  This is a reference to Einstein’s reason for thinking that man cannot travel at the speed of light because he would approach infinite mass, becoming everything in the universe.  Which is interesting because it suggests that the person moving at the speed of light would become the super position, everywhere at the same time.  If you look at the concept of time dilation, there would be much more time from the perspective of that person because time would be moving much more slowly for him.

It is because we have finite capacity that time appears to exist because we the individual are not whole and in order to make ourselves whole we must continue to interact with our surroundings to maintain a kind of wholeness.  We return to the universe for food, sustenance, shelter, to expel waste, to procreate, and for us survival is wholeness.  One self must rely on the ONE SELF, the universe for survival.

If you look at the connection between mind time and pain what you realize is that pain stimulates the mind and the mind exists to help us connect ourselves with that which would temporarily make us whole, what we need, what we want.


The reason we have failed to discover the theory of everything is because of the cornerstone that we reject, the human perspective.  Fred Hoyle, formerly an atheist, became a deist when discovering the Triple-Alpha process.  This was the first time the Anthropic principle was invoked predictively.  It suggested that the universe might exist for the experience of human beings.

From my experience humans are the brain cells of god.  Intelligence is a very mysterious thing, even though we know it exists and we know it has a huge effect on it’s environment we can’t quantify intelligence like we do everything else.

I have a series of questions for you:  Is intelligence native to the universe?  If so do you believe it had to be here in some form at the inception of the universe?  Would you agree that there is a big difference between intelligent creatures and inanimate objects insofar as we are able to influence our environment?  Now please tell me what percentage of the universe is intelligent?  What percentage of the earth is intelligent?  What percentage of the human body is intelligent?  What percentage of the human brain is intelligent?

Human beings and the human perspective are integral to the theory of everything.  If you examine the way in which math and language frame the problem one (language) presupposes relationship and the other presupposes a singular will, which would be the will of the universe, which would be god’s will, which the mathematician conflates with his own will.



There are two different perspectives that the human being can have.  The person that perceives the universe as an object presupposes tacitly a singular will, one volition, and from their perspective they possess that will and they objectify the universe and those around them, I call this being delusional towards people or relationship.  The person who perceives the universe as a person might be delusional about facts but they tend to be less delusional about relationship, imho.  There is a meeting place between Psychology and Philosophy where the rational man stands, both non-deluded about facts and the universe and non deluded about people as well.

The Ancient Indian Philosophers tell a story of Markandeya, one of the greatest Hindu saints, that like Jonah found himself expelled from the mouth of Vishnu who symbolized the universe.  Outside of Vishnu he found himself floating in cold water in permanent night, not being able to see anything.  Until suddenly he saw Vishnu floating on the water in the lion’s pose, after much prayer he was able to get back into Vishnu’s mouth and into our Universe.  This story communicates to me that our universe was created for our mind.  There is no reason we should be able to understand or contemplate the universe.  And I doubt that anything outside of the universe would be in the least way intelligible to the human brain.  We are god, understanding god, inside of god.  Think of our lives as introspection as it were.  Life has experiential data.  It has meaning for the individual that it doesn’t communicate to anyone else.  Our life, in a way, is like a private conversation between us and the universe.


My Organic Computer Theory suggests that humans are not as unpredictable as we think.  Every event or fact or statement has positive or negative survival data to the individual, which creates negative or positive emotions.  (the binary code for Organic Computers) This depends on how the individual defines themselves.  The definition set of the individual determines who they project their sense of self onto (plasticity of the sense of self) and who they retract their sense of self from.  This is determined by the character they are playing and the story they think they are in.

Linguistic science and cognitive science believe that we remember things in a matrix of narrative.  That is how we string facts together and how we remember them.  If we genuinely understand an individual we know how they will interpret events and what kind of impact those events will have on their psyche.

Unlike facts and objects humans are less predictable, less objectifiable, more difficult to understand.  So the person good with science and numbers might be almost retarded when it comes to relationship.  Thus I refer to humans as Intelligent Objects to distinguish them from facts and objects.



The above is how I describe the universe, if their is nothing their can’t be change, and if their is change their can’t be nothingness.  If the universe has the ability to settle into grosser and finer elements when nothing is happening. Then one end of the spectrum would be more active and the other end more static, if you were to turn this pole in a circle and touch both ends you would get an explosion as faster and slower moving elements came into contact with one another.

Ponder this, if their were only one source of light in the universe and no mass, their would be no friction and therefore their would be also no heat.

Furthermore, if nothingness, the original substance is like a fluid, if it were to be stirred would it create brecciated nothingness?  If that was the case than once again their would be difference and their would be change.


Another question I have pondered, if time doesn’t exist, why does empty space exist?  How come everything isn’t smashed so close together movement is impossible?  You see I am very suspicious of this thing called empty space that allows me to see from here to there.  What is this substance that I am looking through?  I think empty space is a very mysterious substance.  We don’t contemplate it because we categorize it as nothing.  Is there some force that is the opposite of gravity, perhaps levity that is simultaneously pushing things apart and separating them?  Observe how quickly some substances diffuse in a vacuum or even a fluid.  Why doesn’t everything diffuse to fill empty space.

In the article it is suggested the time can be a singular dimension not necessarily associate with the other 3.  For example, like a photograph their could be space but their wouldn’t be time so their wouldn’t be movement.  But why is there space in the first place?  Why is their separation?  If nothing banged why is it not like we are living in a singularity?


One final comment, if time is an illusion, that means that there must be some time some place before time or outside of time.  Which means that all their is right now is the singularity and the illusion of plurality. I wrote a fiction piece a while back showing how this would work, potentially.  From the perspective of the person in the singularity every moment of time would be immediately accessible.  (

If time isn’t real, the Universe isn’t real because the big bang never banged.  Which means all their is, is the ONE SELF.  So, if that is the case, are we the dream of God?


One thought on “Response to Scientific American: A Matter of Time.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s