Outside the Time-Space Continuum

Here is my favorite conundrum. It will take a bit of time to develop, so be patient while I struggle to lay the foundation to understand heaven/eternity/before it/after it, etc. My basic truth is “there is not one word in any language that can be applied in the discussion of whatever is beyond the time-space continuum”. Words themselves are a product of the time-space continuum and are just symbols for physical manifestations appearing as things, actions and states of being.  They  just cannot apply in any fashion to a discussion about whatever is beyond the time-space continuum. I.E, words only apply to what is inside the time-space continuum, and I may even qualify that to our little dimension we are tuned to and exist in. They may only describe how we perceive this illusion we call life but not to reality.  How can Newtonian physics be truly applicable when the basis for the whole structure of the universe may lie in concepts involve in quantum theory behavior.  Recent CERN (supercollider in Geneva) indicate the universe was once a quark-gluon soup.  Conditions are totally wack.  Quantum behavior is somewhat hard to model and understand and modeling is often just representation of a few aspects of particle behavior.  It’s like wavicle.  Electrons have behaviors that are like particles and like waves.  How do you put that in your minds eye, which is built to respond to Newtonian physics and even that is not quite accurate- it is built to respond to some spectral range in physics.  We can’t see in microwave, infrared, gamma, other spectrums.  We do build machines that can, but likely our modeling falls quite short of its behavior. Like Jane theory

The philosophy I like from Janism (I am not a Jane)

An aside- I really love a Jane concept, of the doctrine extending from anekantavada (non-absolutism). This idea assigns a word that can mean “maybe” or “perhaps” to every phrase or expression but means “in some ways” or “from some perspective” trying to account for life’s complexity and no ONE proposition can express its full nature. They hope to remove dogmatism from the statements by “the theory of seven conditioned predications”. Don’t care much about other Jane philosophies.  Never studied it, but did look into it and other main religions.

syād-asti – in some ways, it is,

syān-nāsti – in some ways, it is not,

syād-asti-nāsti – in some ways, it is, and it is not,

syad-asti-avaktavya – in some ways, it is, and it is undescribable,

syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ – in some ways, it is not, and it is undescribable,

syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ – in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is undescribable,

syād-avaktavyaḥ- in some ways it is undescribable

The seven tenets account for the unknowable nature of reality from a relative point of view of time, space, substance and perspective. To ignore the complexity of reality is to ignore theory of partial viewpoints. Every object has infinite aspects, but when we describe one, we speak only of what is relevant to us and ignore other aspects.

Philosophical disputes arise out of differing points of view, and the views we adopt are the result of prejudices that we pursue without realizing it.

Don’t usually like poetry, but this one is great (kind of works with Jane ideas)

The Blind Men and the Elephant by John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

(Though all of them were blind)

That each by observation

Might satisfy the mind.

The First approached the Elephant

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side

At once began to bawl:

God bless me, but the Elephant I

tis nothing but a wall.

The Second, feeling of the tusk,

Cried, Ho! What have we here,

So very round and smooth and sharp?

To me its mighty clear

This wonder of an Elephant

Is very like a spear.

The Third approached the animal,

And happening to take,

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Then boldly up and spake:

“I see”, quoth he,

the Elephant Is very like a snake.

The Fourth reached out hid eager hand,

And felt about the knee.

“What most this wondrous beast is like

Is mighty plain”, quoth he;

“Tis clear enough the Elephant

Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: “E’en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most,

Deny the fact who can,

This marvel of an Elephant\

Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun,

About the beast to grope,

Than, seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

“I see”, quoth he,

“the Elephant Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right

But all were in the wrong!


So oft in theologic wars,

The disputants, I ween,

Tread on in utter ignorance

Of what each other mean,

And prate about an Elephant

Not one of them has seen!

We can ask no meaningful question, contemplate any meaningful possibilities and conjectures, or understand a meaningful answer about beyond the time-space continuum; even that question is silly – it is no better than saying blug, blug, qruck, noy space-time continuum? I will prove it. All our words are time-space dependant and can be used to describe what is time-space dependant only. the words themselves establish time-space dependencies and are used to describe/manipulate time-space dependant questions/answers. Here is where I might lose you, so pay attention. I am going to throw out 20 words you might use in a question or expect to get in an answer about what is beyond and I will show you that none can be used in phrasing even the simplest of questions about what is beyond Time-Space Continuum which I will shorten to TSC. It is fairly simple to understand why when you “get” it. Here’s a pretty good sampling of words you might phrase in a question or answer – who, what, when, where, why, before, after, now, outside, there, is, a, how, because, if, by, only, was, will be, And my point will be that they cannot be used in any meaningful way to ask a question or get a meaningful answer. It will all be garbled garbage in or out. Let me take a few at a time and show you that not one of the above words casn be used in any meaningful way.

Its worse and an Englishman trying to understand a Chinese man, neither of which spoke the other’s language. At least they can use hand signals and pantomime to ge info back and forth. We all eat, so opening mouth, holding a pretend bowl and pretend using a fork or spoon to shovel food in will eventually be understood. You might have to show a pretend chopstick putting food in your mouth, and t pretend chewing and swallowing, rubbing tummy in a satisfied way will eventually get the Chinese speaker to understand you are talking about food or eating. You might squat, grunt, hold your nose and the Chinese man will get what you want to talk about. By the end of one day you can have quite a common communication system and even assign sounds to develop common words of understanding. In our situation it is impossible to do. I still haven’t wrapped my mind around the electron position dilemma. It can be here, there, in two place, nowhere and everywhere and in twenty places at once. Can anybody visualize that? (For techys only – How do you model that- the way you see those probability diagrams of electron orbitals in chemistry. 1s2, 2s2, 2p6. 3s2…….).

Let’s start with the words. I literally spent hours trying every perspective, until I got this one. You should catch on pretty quick. Jf you want to ask a question or get an answer about what is outside the Space time continuum (God’s world)- you can’t use-

1. What – because “what” implies physicality (what is a thing or event) and if it is outside STC matter isn’t. So things aren’t. Matter exists in the STC only.

2. When – because “when” implies time and time, by definition, exists only in STC and is a measure of space- no space outside STC.

3. How – because “how” requires description in terms of matter or sequence of events; only exist in STC

4. the or a – both imply physicality and often a location by pointing or understanding. Only in STC- “a”dog, “the” cat

5. Before – because implies time; time implies space; neither exist outside STC

6. outside STC -outside can’t be used to describe outside STC because it implies location/physicality; neither exist there. There is no “side” against STC

7. there – doesn’t exist there; their implies location and space; neither exist

8.because – implies sequences of events or physicality which exist only in STC

9. now, after, before, after, like what was before God; time words requires TSC to exist so before, after, now, was, is, will be, when  are useless outside the TSC

10;.if- because it implies conditionality, implying physicality only in STC. Means choosing between 2 or more – requires physicality.

11. by – implies an event or action as in “by doing this” – needs STC

I can find no word that can possibly describe, or even ask a question about “God’s world” or, if you are a non-believer, beyond “STC”. Worse- I haven’t decided 100% that anything can be. “I am considering that everything is actually a complete illusion. Even then basis of scientific TRULY” said about what is inside the STC. Inside STC implies an outside; principle may be an illusion. Things may seem to act a certain way in the STC, but if reality is “outside” and rules governing STC are outside, they may seem logical, but logical is based on general consensus of repeated results of events. This is actually the case. Science now believes that Newtonian physics doesn’t exist at the quantum level. That means logic (totally based on consensus of results from sequences of events) doesn’t exist at quantum levels. But quantum levels underlie everything. All physicality, time, space is based on Newtonian physics and logic, and logic is based on consensus of expectations, since quanta uinderlie everything, all must be subject to its rules and our beliefs are the illusion of repeatability of results of event sequencing