Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is a discussion forum topic for the November 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.


In a previous forum topic, I proved that unconscious presence does not exist. By extension, that means there is no objective time, no objective now, and no objective simultaneity, and no objective order to events. There is no singular present (i.e. no here and now). In other words, there is no center to the universe, neither in space (a single 'here'), nor time (a single 'now'), or in spacetime (a single 'here-and-now').

In that topic, for simplicity, I explicitly excluded 'conscious presents' from the argument and discussion, thereby mostly if not entirely side-stepping the Observer Problem in physics and the Hard Problem of Consciousness in philosophy.

Without subjectivity (i.e. consciousness), there is no present.

But, with subjectivity (i.e. consciousness), there are presents. In fact, with consciousness, there are infinite presents.

In other words, assuming we reject solipsism, then that means there are infinite consciousnesses (i.e. subjective presents) scattered throughout 4D spacetime, including that which you would call the past or the future, from the reference frame of your own subjective conscious present, which is just one of infinite equally existing and equally present conscious presents.

In other words, without conscious present(s), the universe has no here, no now, and no here-and-now at all.

Without any conscious present(s), the universe has no center, the 'center' being the spot where X, Y, Z, and T all equal 0 for 4D physics calculations.

With consciousness (i.e. subjective presents), the universe has infinite centers. In a sense, that is exactly what it means to be conscious and to be a conscious observer with one's own subjective present: it is the self-referential appearance or feeling of being the center of the universe, both in terms of time and space or more accurately in terms of 4D spacetime. It is that feeling of being the I. It entails the at least mostly illusionary feeling of being the one and only center, the one and only I. It comes with a feeling or appearance, like an optical illusion, of solipsism being true. It comes with the feeling that things are happening here-and-now if they are happening very near oneself in spacetime in one's own conscious present in spacetime, which in reality is only one infinitesimal conscious present of infinite.

But it's reasonable to conclude solipsism is false. It's reasonable to reject that appearance or feeling that one is the one and only spatiotemporal center of the universe, and instead realize that other beings are conscious as well (i.e. are each their own subjective conscious center of the universe, their own protagonist in their own story happening in their own now). This includes but is not limited to other humans scattered across spacetime from cavemen in caves in the stone-age to colonists on Mars in the space-age. It includes your great great grandparents and great great grandchildren, and many more. It includes both the 10-year-old version of the human you see in the mirror and the 50-year-old version of the human you see in the mirror. They are both conscious, each in their own respective present. They are two of the infinite conscious presents scattered across 4D spacetime.

One way to conceive of the timelessness of reality is to think of those infinite presents scattered across spacetime as all existing simultaneously in eternal reality. That's much more accurate than thinking of them as existing in time (which doesn't exist) with some kind of objective order (which doesn't exist). There is no objective time and there is no objective order, due to the relativity of simultaneity as shown by Einstein and the many experiments that have proved his theorized relativity utterly right.

However, while the above paragraph offers a much more accurate model than the human brain's typical wronger Newtonian model, it is still a not-quite-right hack to think of all the infinite presents across all of spacetime as happening simultaneously, including those you think of as being in the distant past or in the distant future relative to your present, which is only one of infinite equally present presents.

More accurately, we must explicitly say that it is not simultaneous within time, because time doesn't really exist. Rather, in this case the simultaneity of all presents is used to describe the timelessness of reality itself. It's an analogue of traditional time-dependent simultaneity. It is a timeless super-simultaneity in a way. It is to describe the eternal timeless nature of holistic reality. It is in a way to deny the solipsistic idea that somehow you really are the one and only center of the universe, in time and space, and somehow your spatiotemporal present is the one and only real one; that somehow your present is the now. There is no 'the now'. And there is no 'the left'. Rather, there are infinite nows and infinite lefts, with each conscious observer in 4D spacetime having their own equally valid here and now, including ancient caveman in caves and futuristic spacesuit-wearing colonists on Mars.

Things aren't happening simultaneously within time, because there is no time. The infinite presents do not exist within time, because there is no time. Rather, all the infinite presents across all of 4D spacetime exist simultaneously in timeless eternity in the sense of existing together without time, in eternal reality as a timeless spaceless 4D whole.

Insofar as anything is simultaneous, everything is. But it is not a 'simultaneous' in time, it is a non-temporal simultaneousness, meaning it is in the sense of timelessly existing all-together in a holistic reality that is timeless and eternal.

This dreamy world of dancing forms that we usually think of ourselves as living in, with its oversimplified known-to-be-wrong Newtonian physics, can make it seem like we are so separate or so alone, or both. But, when we become more present in our present, it is that VR-world that is revealed as the illusion. We are already living together in the eternal perfect reality, and always have been, and always will be.

Nothing needs to changed, and nothing 'should' be changed (whatever that would mean), because nothing can be changed, because fundamentally even change is an illusion.

For those reasons, and the others explained in my book, it seems obvious to me that we are already living in heaven, together, and always have been and always will be.

But I believe in heaven you can dream. And your dreams can become nightmares. There's a very real sense in which we see what we want to see. Even when it comes to nightmarish dreams, the dreamer creates the nightmare, not vice versa. But, hey, I love a good scary movie. If you do too, then feel free to find the pleasure in pain, and the beauty in a nightmare. Get lost in it. There's nothing wrong with it if that's what you choose. Otherwise, you can always awaken. You can always choose to be more lucid. You can always find that invincible inner peace of the one who is spiritually awakened and spiritually free. You can always be more present in your present. For, in the end, our beautiful infinite shared present is everywhere and anywhere, which is why you are always there no matter where you are, where you go, and where you might be. It's us, and the rest is just an illusion, a construct, a dream of choices and change, a dancing world of forms in which we are not one but many, separate not together, and where we might even be opponents or enemies. One the hungry lion, and one the running scared antelope.

Maybe we're animals chasing each other for survival, where only one can make it, or boxers in the boxing ring, or two best friends on opposite ends of a chess board, both working diligently to defeat the other.

As I wrote in the book, on page 134, I believe that even my worst enemy is but a friend—me, myself, in fact—in playful disguise. Neither the lion nor the antelope is evil as one chases the other, whether the lion eats a bloody meal or starves to death as he is denied his sustenance by a fast antelope.

This eternal infinite heavenly eternity in which we find ourself is such an interesting beautiful place; don't you think?




The book is available for purchase from all major book retailers in both ebook and hardcover format.

[Olga_Markova]

I agree that without consciousness , there is no present. With consciousness, there are infinite presents. I - subjectively - prefer the word consciousness to "subjectivity" although granted, they are synonyms because consciousness is subjective, being unique to every person. One example to illustrate why I agree - if I am sitting at a lecture and I fall asleep (I usually do at lectures), what is my present? There is none - at best a dream, but most likely - the void. Once I wake up and try to tune into what the professor is talking about, I have my present awakened. The next moment the lecture is over, and we are off to a pub. My present exists - there at the pub discussing whatever with my classmates. An even more vivid example is auto-piloting the things we do routinely. Say, I routinely give one of my dogs his heart pill with his meal, twice daily for life. I get distracted by a phone call as I feed my dogs, and I auto-pilot their meals as I talk on the phone. Once the phone call is over, I ask myself "Did I give Alf his pill?". Was I present feeding the dogs? No, I was present at the phone call! Even though physically at the same time I fed the dogs!

And I agree that the present, which Scott calls "this eternal infinite heavenly eternity in which we find ourselves", is indeed "an interesting beautiful place". I think what it means in practice is that it is important to feel the present, not just auto-pilot through life, hardly realising where we are and what we are doing at a particular moment. It is very easy to succumb to a zombie-like state under the life pressures of juggling priorities but simply getting myself to stop, sit in the garden, and watch trees and birds for a few minutes before getting back onto the usual hamster wheel really helps to feel the "inner peace" and enjoy the life.

[ahassan_96]

I have to admit, this is quite an interesting concept about existentialism. The need to understand how humans co-exist with each other from a societal perspective is always met by challenges. As a result, people have developed some kind of rational system for them to function as a unit, understanding each other's motives and goals. The beauty of maintaining a structural order is maintained when energies resonate with each other. Thus, in most cases, you might find that some struggle more than others to come into union with themselves. Hence, when we look at this in terms of what we create, only two outcomes can be derived from the experience; bliss or depression.

But one thing I've always be in constant debate about is we, as humans, are we capable of achieving the eternal infinite heavenly eternity as a whole, globally? Well, I guess the secret lies in what we are able to perceive and create. When we create we perceive, and when we perceive it means that we've created. While time has no reasonable factor, influence plays a major role in determining the outcome consciousness is able to uphold.

[Okoth David]

Subjectivity, or consciousness, is proposed to be crucial for the existence of the present. It implies that without subjective experience, there is no concept of the present. Conversely, with subjectivity, diverse perspectives generate infinite interpretations of the present moment.

[Sushan]

I agree. Time is relative. So depending on the point where someone is standing, their perception changes. My future can be someone else's history, hence they already know my future (quite interesting). There is no linear path to time. In SciFi this is discussed as multiple time lines, but I think that is merely for the easy understanding and entertaining purposes. This reminds me of the movie, Everything Everywhere All at Once.

As you pointed out, only with subjectivity we can have reference points in time, or in other words a 'present.' And to have subjectivity we have to have a consciousness. Insightful