“Is the world really a purposeless machine?”

- to answer on this question is necessary previously define – what is “world”? In other cases quite naturally the topic’s question hasn’t some reasonable answer.

Besides, the topic’s question relates to a number of Meta-[mainstream-philosophical and mainstream-physical] notions and so can be discussed reasonably only in framework of the “The Information as Absolute” conception (http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173), where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing besides some informational patterns that are elements of absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.

As a rule the notion “world” relates to [at least] two different notions: “Matter” and “Consciousness”, which are some different sub-Sets that contain informational patterns, which are organized on qualitatively different principles.

First of all – all/ every material objects exist and interact by using exclusively true information, when for elements of the sub-Set “Consciousness”, (humans observe as such elements reliably seems only as humans’ consciousnesses, though one cannot exclude a lot of others) this rile isn’t obligatory, as human’s experience shows.

The sub-Sets “Matter” and “Consciousness” (and the sub-Set “Alive”, though) constitute the sub-Set “[our] Universe”.

So:

- if the notions “world” stands for “Matter”, then the answer is – yes, that is a machine, though remains the answer – is the world purposeless or not?; and

- if the notions “world” stands for “Universe”, then – no, our [observable] Universe isn’t a machine, since consciousnesses aren’t “machines”, they can operate / work up – in contrast to material objects – in/ with uncertain and false information; human’s consciousness perceives her own existence and singles out herself in the material and conscious environment, etc.

But it seems rather probable that just because of the consciousness existence in sometimes uncertain and false situations, to operate stably for the consciousness is necessary to be resident on some stable [determinate] material structure, “hardware” (for human’s consciousness that is the human’s body and brain).

So “world” can be non- purposeless; here a question appears – what is whole Matter in our Universe?…

Cheers

Throughout all, is position. I am at the top therefore I provide the nutshell, 'everything is wormy'. Rupert has vision and it's 20-20.

All DocsEdit

Copy of time

Nature of Time

The nature of time has had extensive attention in part down through the ages, such as Plato, St. Augustine, Pascal, Leonardo, Newton etc. For example, Newton considered time to flow uniformly, as if it were a separate manifold (1-surface) from the 3-surface of his mechanics described universe.

‘Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external…’   Newton’s Principia

For a manifold, this would give a product space description M3 x M1 , the simplest fiber bundle description. Hence such description would be universal; that is the same common time for throughout the universe. Subsequently, the relativistic model refers to time as the interval between events, wherein clocks are associated with respective observers. However an event such as the Big Bang, and concomitant Big Expansion of our manifold (i.e. 3-surface), does not have such a General Relativity Theory description; nor is ‘initial’ 3-expansion (i.e. Hubble expansion) of our 3-volume limited by velocity of light, as in Special Relativity. Hence the possibility of further modeling in regards to how our 3-space and contents evolves.

Might there be another common time description as to how our 3-volume evolves? Just as Gauss described curvature of a surface intrinsic to such 2-surface, and Riemann described curvature of a 3-surface as intrinsic to such 3-surface, might not one analogously describe time as intrinsic to our 3-surface? Could the nonlinear Hubble expansion be utilized as such common time description for our 3-surface, and perhaps for a set of such 3-surfaces (i.e. 3-volumes, 3-manifolds); that is for misnomer, ‘multiple universes’? Universe, denotes all inclusiveness, rather than multi-universe which implies a set of such all inclusiveness. Hence better to refer to a set of 3-volumes i.e. 3-manifolds. Also non-linearity to Hubble expansion might even be of an always exponential nature, if it is just a specific example of the more general case: all explosiveness is of an exponential nature. So do all locations of our 3-volume, and for a possible set of 3-volumes, share the same common time i.e. common cosmic time? That is, perceiving the same Big Bang ~13.8 billion years ago; and thus the same ~2.7 degree kelvin temperature of cosmic background radiation for our now i.e. common positive definite modified global instant?

Also for a set of 3-volumes, contained in an array of planes, spherically symmetrical about a modified central force,  might one also have a concomitant common cosmic time description intrinsic to the System i.e. array of planes consisting of 3-volumes? That is, might one utilize the construct of a spherical shell through the respective centers of all 3-volumes, denoting such common cosmic time for all 3-manifolds? This might be referred to as Modified Global Simultaneity (MGS) construct. Such set of successive MGSs would be matched to the integers; hence having positive definite separation. And such set of MGSs could be rendered as always exponentially changing i.e. part of an exponential curve. Likewise for the changing rate of Hubble expansion, intrinsic to each and all 3-volumes.

Thus in such modeling, would one have two concomitant descriptions of an overall common cosmic time; the Hubble Expansion, intrinsic to 3-volume, and MGS, intrinsic to the System?  TMM

The length of time this talk takes is inversely proportional to the open-mindedness of the listener.

Only complaint is that this was too long!!!

only complaint is that this was too short!!!