While you have a valid point about the chicken and egg thing, I don't think it's actually possible to resolve which came first. It's a circular dependency. My general solution is to simply realize that neither of them came first because time doesn't need to have a beginning. It's an infinite chain:. ... chicken, egg, ...
Shawn Blackwolf,
The problem with your "code" is that it's not a valid proof in the context of most topics. It's akin to using advanced mathematics in an elementary school; no one understands why it works, so it's essentially useless to them. This means that if you want it to use it as a meaningful explanation, you need to give reasoning as to why it is valid; you need to provide a proof for it.
For example, you say certain numbers mean different things, but your assignment seems arbitrary. This assignment needs to be explained or else it looks like you just randomly chose numbers to fit your use case.
For example, you need to explain why "gibberish = 326" instead of "gibberish = 25" (or any other number).
Also, the term "gibberish" (and your other words) are highly unspecific. This means that you can interpret them any way you want. This also means that your system is logically invalid until you specify an exact definition for each of your words. In one interpretation, "gibberish" might mean "chicken" because I don't understand chickens and they appear to be gibberish. Or, "gibberish" might mean "7" because 2 + 2 = 7 and I think that's gibberish. I can interpret "gibberish" to mean "a non-sense number" or "a complicated animal", or anything else. This is especially bad because you are using an adjective instead of a noun.
You misunderstood the definition of the word. I didn't say "provide proof". I said "provide a proof". A proof isn't about empirical evidence; it's about logic and derivations. A proof is an explanation of why something must be true based on it being logically impossible for it to be false. Essentially, you make your case by ruling out all alternatives, not by finding some evidence which points to you being right.By the way , I did not see anyone asking for "proof" in the thread...just sayin'
Spida,
That's a good point. I don't think I've even considered macrocosmic time in my paradigm; it simply doesn't have a definition. The idea of objective time doesn't really stick with me because I have difficulty defining the boundaries of objective reality. Also, if the primordial consciousness for whatever reason never experienced a certain part of a supposed objective reality, then it's not entirely accurate to say that that objective reality has a timeline because such a "line" would have holes in it.I'm seeing a few scenarios here involving different concepts of Time. I will only go into a couple. First you have Physical, or Macrocosmic Time. And you also have 'Perceived' Time, Microcosmic Time as it relates to consciousness. Macrocosmic Time is synonymous with 'Change", and Microcosmic Time is also change, but it is change 'within', i.e. a passing of moments.
The physical not yet having been reached by the primordial consciousness is still. Then consciousness which acts out the physical's characters, one at a time, turns stillness into animated life. I agree totally.Now with regard to the "Initial Cause". Perhaps it would be Physical Time that would be static and frozen, in the absence of space where it is impossible for physical change to occur.
Agreed.But this Primordial Consciousness may have sense of time. And this would eliminate the problem of something(change) occurring in the absence of Time. Now of course this would also render this Primordial Consciousness Eternal. To avoid a recurring problem of a "no Time" Paradox.
Not really a paradox. Consider that all permutations of reality exist in theory, but are only animated when the primordial consciousness acts them out. Treat every permutation of reality as being like a number on a line. Do all the numbers exist before we assign them to some variable? So too then, do all realities lie in wait, ready to be assigned to consciousness.Now what Mr. Blackwolf said about everything existing in a static state all at once. I have looked at it that way, and I like that concept. I actually even arrived at that myself independently. It would be an Infinite and timeless construct where everything does indeed exist "at once". The time paradox is an issue here, but I don't think that invalidates the idea.
Agreed. Though I'm not sure creation is the right word. More like discover. I can't fathom how you could create or destroy any primordial substance, so I can infer that they have simply always existed. I think of consciousness as weaving together disjoint parts in order to create complex parts. Not so much an act of creation, but more so an act of organization.So in effect the inflation of the Universe would be feeding off of this static copy of Infinity. Permutations involving an anabolic process implementing a Divine Fractal Architecture of a sort. As one idea.
So in summary. The Primordial Consciousness, which would have perception of time. Would be the initiator (creator) of 4D Spacetime. This would resolve the no time paradox, but changes things a bit.
Side note: I feel like the phrase "exists in theory" works a lot better than saying something "exists timelessly" (after all, we don't really have a meaning for "not time", as things are defined in terms of moments of time / states). Anything that's "timeless" hasn't been made a part of time, and therefore, has not been actualized / executed. This means that timeless things are akin to theories, but "theory" is a much more understandable term. Everyone understands that something theoretical can exist, but doesn't. Perhaps you could term an object outside of time a theoretical object (not quite imaginary, because it has a definition, but not presently existent, because it is only a possibility).