Time, as we experience it, has different components sharing a common unit (such as seconds). There is the scientific time that is analytic in a way that makes possible mechanistic models that are very successful at modeling the physical world. There is the historic time that allows for growing intelligence made possible by the additional evidence that comes inevitably from the passage of time. For intelligence to act upon the physical (mechanistic) world to exercise a free will, there is a component of time required for persuasion through some process that allows for selecting the opportunities presented by the otherwise indifferent physical world.
An initial consciousness could through design, refactoring, and replication build up the universe without any further miracles beyond the initial consciousness in the first place.
Learning is an instinctual behavior. If we had to be taught how to learn, we could never learn that lesson.
This futuristic dedomenocracy offers a way to falsify the deterministic theory of mind by simple observation of innovative crime that occurs despite the power of the available data. Observations of successful innovative crimes that have unacceptably damaging consequence, or that occur in unacceptably high numbers would be evidence that we lack sufficient data for the deterministic model. However, I am assuming a future where we will have observations of just about everything that is observable. If dedomenocracy continues to experience innovative crimes despite having access to everything that is observable, then there the innovative part of the mind must be accessing something that can not be observed.
The popular dark-matter hypothesis takes for granted the existence of fundamental particles that are outside of human capacity to observe. The hypothesis in the first article is that these hidden particles are as-yet undetected peers of sub-atomic particles we already know. The lack of perturbation of post-collision dark matter implies that if such sub-atomic dark-matter particles exist, they do not collide individually like particles we know. My conjecture is that the entire blob depicted in ghastly blue in the visualization is a single particle, or an agglomeration of galaxy-sized fundamental particles. The collisions didn’t affect these particles because the collisions are trivial for the scale of these particles.
All we have to work with is data or evidence. Our best data is the freshest data, and even the freshest data is historic data. As soon as we can assign a time-stamp, the physical reality has moved on. We are left only with historic data. What matters to data is not how far back did time begin, but instead how far ahead the real world is from our contemplation.
In earlier posts I contemplated that idea of the emptiness that separates matter. I wondered whether the nothingness of empty space is an overlooked subject of inquiry. One of my earlier ideas was to offer a different explanation for astronomy’s dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter is the unaccounted additional mass required to…