Just spent a whole mess of time on philosophy - specifically tying to get a clearer picture/discuss the finer points of my friend Matty's version of it. His view is that in a dimension linked, but apart from ours, there exists an infinite supreme rationality, which is the unifying element of reality. All parts of our existence, within time, are encompassed by this great rationality beyond black holes, in a place removed from time (hence the multiple concurrent states of being).
It all started out as a conversation on the merits and downsides of suicide - and moved on from there. While I am sure everyone involved in the conversation have very different opinions and expressions of reality, and how it works, Ed was good enough to quasi-moderate, at least insofar as determining some baseline definitions.
Time - the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues. That was the second definition, as provided by Richelle. Props to her, we probably would have diced semantics for 50 minutes if she hadn't hopped into the dictionary.
Energy was a harder condense into a definition. Ed's basic definition is that energy is work over time. Matty's whole structure of the universe had to support a timeless realm or dimension adjacent to ours, so time and energy became a mincing fest. Eventually the distinction went back to the definition of time, where events (energy) took place. Matty's view of human existence is that the entire thing is one "instance" - that is the entirety of our life cycle, from birth to death, is one singular point in eternity. Working this into a geometric model, I asked him if humanity would be better graphed 2d as a line or a circle.
We ended up with a human existence, and the energies it produces, and which react to it, as a singular point on an x,y grid. If you have lost the convo at this point, that’s ok, because there were large paragraphs of clarification, no longer clear, in between all this. I moved from the 2d model to a Mobius strip, which I think could geometrically encapsulate his world view in an explainable manner, even if I disagree with its existence/theoretical applications.
I still disagree that a combination of all instances, in a timeless state, would result in a rational consciousness. Matty argues that when you remove time from an equation, emotion gets weeded out. I agree that is possible that there could be a timeless state with a collective experiential consciousness that exists within it - but its relation to our world and purpose is negligible, if at all connectable. Matty argues that we are a part of it - therefore "living" makes us part of its greater purpose.
Too many holes and paradoxes imo. I don't think you can ever have a watertight worldview. Nonetheless, I've been working on mine since I was around 12 or 13, and I still have plenty of holes.