Throughout I have been attacking the boundaries of space, now I plan to go after the other portion of the fourth dimension: time. There are two divisions of time I will discuss: Radial/Rotational and Linear. Radial Time is the way we measure time by years or even minutes. Radial time is usually subjective. This is usually measured by rotation such as the earth rotating around the sun. The second is Linear Time. This is a more absolute type of time measured abstractly by past, present, and future. We usually suggest Linear time begins at the Big Bang.
There is a problem with Radial time: it is rotational and subjective. We cannot find a universal way to measure time. For example, if we were on an electron we would measure time by rotations around the nucleus. However, different atoms wouldn’t have the same time and even different electrons may have different times. We measure rotational time by Earth’s rotation around the sun. But if we were to move outside the solar system, we would not be able to use this as the basis. So we may consider measuring the sun’s rotation around the center of the Milky Way. But it keeps on going outward and two problems arise. One, when we get to a certain level, we cannot be sure that they orbit anything, so there is no way to measure time. The second problem is due to the infinite nature of space. As stated in the last section, there is no center. The center will always have to be moved proportionally and subjectively. You cannot measure time by the rotation around a ‘not center’.
Linear time is not so assured either. There are two possible problems. Even if we assume that the big bang (which also assumes a center) is the absolute beginning, we still suffer a problem. The problem is that the big bang is an expansion event, it has the opposite effect of gravity- it pushes things away. So if something were to be there, it would not orbit it. If nothing were to orbit it, how would time happen? I may concede that time happens, the passing of one moment to another does happen. We definitely would not be able to measure it, but it may still happen. Time is solely a change within the dimension in space. Time would be measured because Object A would move from Point 1 (the place where the big bang took place) to Point 2 (the place where expansion moved Object A) and has a memory of Point 1. We would still be able to measure time in abstract terms such as ‘past’, ‘present’, and future, just not using concrete terms such as 1 year. However, as was stated earlier, there has always been something and never solely nothing. With that we should accept that the instance of the big bang wasn’t something being transformed from nothing, but probably the change of something into another form of something or just an expansion of the original something.
If you have bought my previous premises though, you should concede that there is no ‘beginning’. If you accepted my premise towards the start of this article that only something exists, then there has always been a something and never a nothing. If you have also accepted the fact that there is no center, then it should be clear that Linear time does not exist. There is no center point to measure movement from. There is no beginning to measure a starting point from. Therefore, there is no time.
The mimicking of the macro with the micro and vice versa causes an image to come to mind. The large Universe gets smaller and we see galaxies, then planets, and so on until we are at quarks and the Higgs-Boson particle. When I think of this I then am reminded of fractals. Fractals are these shapes that repeat endlessly the further you zoom in. True fractals don’t exist in nature; however you have fractal-esque shapes in those that contain the Fibonacci spiral. You can zoom in on the spiral and keep on zooming in and you will keep on seeing a spiral.
Imagine a Cartesian plane. As it zooms in, you just end up with more lines and repetition. You can do the same in reverse. When you zoom out, you will continuously end up with the same figure regardless of scale. Notice how the figure will require you to zoom several levels before the figure repeats. For example: Level 1, L2, L3, L4…. The figure will appear the same at levels 1, 4, 8, 12…. In between those intervals, however, it may appear vastly different. Notice that, although L1 and L4 may appear the same they are mathematically different. L1 may be -1 and L4 may be -1.0001.
As discussed earlier, things at the macro level seem to be replicated at the micro level. What if this is just the scale getting to the point where things look similar? What if the planets are L1 and atomic space is L4?
If we were to accept this proposition, two possibilities can be realized. Either the universe is completely fractal and will cyclically repeat, or the universe infinitely regresses in both macro and micro directions.
If the universe is completely fractal, then that would mean when you look in at tree branches you will notice the bark. Go in further, you will see plant cells. Some more you will see atoms. But these atoms would actually be planets and galaxies. Essentially, the universe would reflect in on itself.
I cannot accept this theory. I would argue that the universe is fractal like, but not fractal. The planets and galaxies may hold certain observable similarities but do not hold similarities in properties. If you were to collide multiple Saturns together, you will not get the same end product if you put multiple carbons together. It is also hard to imagine a world where Saturn is made of multiple mini Saturns inside of it. The last counter I have to this idea is that things on the macro are not affected by those in the micro. Every time an atom collides in the Hadron Collider we don’t see a large explosion in our night sky. It is improbable that the universe reflects inward on itself.
The other possibility, that the universe is fractal like and will regress infinitely, seems more probable. This is to say that when you go from L1 to L2…L4 and so on, that L1 and L4 will look alike, but will not have the same properties. This is similar to looking at a Cartesian plane and zooming. The squares may look the same, but will have completely different measurements (2, -1 vs. 2.050037, -1.020045).
Finding a Center
Something to be noticed about this infinite regression is that it will not have a center. If we go off continuously macro-ly or micro-ly, we will never find an end. For things to have a center they must have an edge, boarder, or end. As suggested in the first section, there is no boarder to the universe. When looking at the universe, it goes off in all directions without end like a Cartesian plane. Therefore, there is no center.
An objection to this would be the fact that we use the populated (where there is stuff) part of the universe as the center. This won’t work for several reasons. If we were to do this, it would be completely relative to our portion of the universe. We assume that our portion of the universe (all the galaxies inside the known universe) is the only one. Why not assume there are other populated portions of the universe past the edge of what we know as the universe? My other counterexample is that we don’t use a chocolate chip to measure the radius of the cookie. We need to know where the edge of the cookie is in order to measure the radius. And since there is no edge to the cookie, the cookie goes on indefinitely in all directions.
Patterns in Nature
We can notice, if we look hard enough, that things on the Macro scale mimic those on the micro scale. Figure 1 helps illustrate this.
For example: free floating bodies. At the macro level, you have planets that orbit stars. You also have things like meteors that have no orbit and just float around without a specific orbit (although keeping the inertia from the orbit that gave them momentum originally). Meteors and other free floating bodies can get caught in each other’s gravitational pull and collide to create planets. At the micro level, you have electrons that orbit nuclei. There are also smaller particles called quarks that create the components of atoms.
The Fibonacci sequence is another repeat throughout the system of nature. The Fibonacci is a specific sequence. The rule is Fn= Fn-1 + Fn-2. For example: 1,1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc. This composes two ‘golden’ measurements: the golden spiral and the golden square, collectively known as the golden ratio. Both can be created with these integers. Both are repeated in nature. The spiral of a seashell mimics the two spirals that compose a galaxy. Many plants exhibit this spiral as well, including pinecones and roses. There are a few non-spiral shapes that can be shown to be of the Fibonacci sequence. The branching of such figures as dendrites, lightning, and tree branches are an example. They branch from 1, to 2, to 3, to 5, and so on.
There is a potential criticism of my hypothesis that the macro mirrors the micro and vice versa: humans have tendency to archetype or symbolize things. This may take down the examples I have comparing a human arm to earth and cities to the circulatory system. However it will not compensate for the Fibonacci sequence examples (which can be mathematically proven). Note that it is not one thing; it is a series of things. Even if that is the only argument that withstands its critics, it contains not one example, but many.
The Infamy of Infinity
In the current scheme of things, we are taught to think of time and space as finite. We get stuck into the view due to the fact that the things around us our finite. The water is separate from the ground; Venus is separate from the sun, and so on. Things begin and then they end. Where the water ends, earth begins; where the earth ends, the air begins. One might think that this happens just because we can imagine the finite more clearly than the infinite.
The reason this dichotomy exists is due to the fallibility of human perspective. When a leaf dies we say that it ‘ceases to exist’. This is the natural process of decay and death. We assume this must be the opposite of existence. In reality, this is not the case. The particles that compose of it never actually die, meaning they don’t disappear. No, these particles merely change form. As the law of conservation states: energy is neither created nor destroyed, merely transformed. Therefore the particles always exist. Decay is merely the moving of matter from one state to another. Humans have only had the second perspective within the last 100 years. Because of the first perspective being prevalent for so long, we are stuck with this idea of finite, that things have an end.
Imagine a red circle. Now look out towards its boundary. What do you see on the other side? White or black maybe. Others say nothing. However you cannot think of ‘nothing’. That white or black space you think of is ‘something’. You can apply this same thing to the concept of the Universe, a supposedly bounded entity. But when you get to the edge, what happens? Do you hit a bubble that you cannot past; an ‘invisible wall’. I will argue that you will be able to go on forever past this so-called ‘boundary’.
Throughout this paper I will term things ‘infinite’ and ‘finite’. Respectively I am referring to something ‘without end’ and something ‘with end’.
Im reading a philosophical paper on suicide for a class and i came across some terribly interesting lines:
“[committing suicide] amounts to a confession…. A confession that life is too much or you dont understand it…. it is merely confessing that life ‘isnt worth the trouble.'”
– Albert Camus “The Myth of Sisyphus”
Later he describes that the realization of life’s absurdity causes one to give up (suicide) or create hope, which Camus describes negatively because, to him, hope amounts to a delusion. He suggests that what we should do is bask in life’s absurdness (the fact that it has no meaning) and just examine it.
“You say you love rain, but you use an umbrella to walk under it. You say you love sun, but you seek shelter when it is shining. You say you love wind, but when it comes you close your windows. So that’s why I’m scared when you say you love me.”
I may use an umbrella, but i listen to rain and let it keep me company. Seldom do i let it touch me, but when i do, we dance passionately together. I may seek shelter from the sun, but i do admire it from afar. Seldom do i let it touch me, but when i do, i enjoy its massages. I may close my windows when the wind blows, but that’s only to let the wind dance with someone else. Seldom do i let it touch me, but when i do, our worries cease to be. When I say I love you, its not because I want you to touch me, but because of who you are. When I say I love you, its not because i want your attention, but because I like giving you mine. When I say I love you, its not because I want to possess you, but because our free spirits dance beautifully together.
I started thinking today, as ive been doing a lot recently. When you look at a something in the world you are observing your eyes interpretation of what the world looks like. This means that the world may be presented in a way other than what ‘reality’ really is. What biologically happens is that your eyes receive photons that contain ‘light’ energy and your eye transforms that into neural energy. Now what about dreams? They should be just as vivid if not more so because they are already neural energy and dont need to be transformed. This isnt so.
The only hypothesis i have would be memory. Dreams are easily forgotten and may seem vivid one moment only to disappear another. “Reality” however, moments are tied together by short and long term memory. Then again, try to imagine an apple. It will not even remotely resemble the actual apple itself even if you were to immediately close your eyes upon looking at one. So Im almost certain that this proves my hypothesis incorrect.
If anyone has any insight, feel free to comment. Im just a college student who is studying psychology and is interested in dreams. Any new information helps! Thank you.