Essay 21-Change II

Prologue to the English Version

In the Indonesian version, this essay took 2 days to write due to the immense complexities my brain had to endure writing the first subtopic of eternity and change. The writing process of the first subtopic “fried” my brain and thus exhausted myself due to the complex nature of it. In fact, I would most likely not understand the contents of my own writing and I believe it to not be completely of my own work rather a partial inspiration from God. It is to such extent that I must label it so. It is hoped that the contents of the English version will be simplified and less complex compared to the Indonesian version.

Opening

The essay of change has been written, but newer concepts of reality involving change has introduced more questions and phenomena which must be explained thoroughly. From such questions I find 3 main questions that is the relationship between eternity and change, interactive change, and the streams of change. This essay will then be divided into 3 subtopics to explain such topics in depth while being a second essay in the general topic of change.

Eternity and Change

The problem of change was thought to be not in violation of the law of eternity as it is thought that the basal existence is preserved throughout all time. This is true, but the discovery of the extrinsic property allows us and obligates us to detail further the application of properties unto an object. The basic difference between an individual object and a category thrusts back this question into the light, and necessarily introduces complexities into the concept of change.

The initial idea of change presented by the essay of change states that change is the motion of objects into and out of “actuality”, the realm of reality accessible by consciousness. As such it is thought that the existence of objects remains in perfect conservation throughout the process of change. However, the idea is that it is the same object which exists between its state of actuality and non-actuality. This is now proven to be wrong by the concept of extrinsic property.

Name an object X, and let it move from point a to b, at a it is actual, meaning we can and do experience it, but on point b it has become non-actual, meaning we cannot experience it and we do not experience it. This is a most simple example of change. Now before the introduction of extrinsic properties, we treat the only object to be X, while the differences of spatial-temporal properties and actuality are not even considered. Now they must be considered and in fact we have multiple objects derived from X.

Let us consider that there are now 4 different objects, that is Xa+, Xa-, Xb+, and Xb-. All of these symbols have a specific meaning, X simply means itself, a and b means the points of time, as we assume there is no change of space, and the + and – means the actuality. + means actual and – means non-actual. Therefore, if we take Xa+, it means actual X at point a. Likewise, Xa- means non-actual X at point a, and so on.

What we have in the scenario of change is actually Xa+ --> Xb-. So, we cannot even say that it is one object moving between different fields of actuality, they are by the virtue of their subtle differences, different objects reflected by the different notation. They do belong to the same category of X, but the rest of their properties are different. However, in the perspective of totality we cannot say that Xa+ disappear and is replaced by Xb-, nor is it true that Xb- is at first without being and then comes into being in the place of Xa+. This is due to the fact of reality which records all of time comprehensively.

If we are to ask of the condition of Xa+ and Xb- at points of time which are not their point of origin, then we say they are in a state of non-actual reality. As such there are 2 types of actuality, the actuality of consciousness and the actuality of existence or reality. Let us call them subjective actuality and objective actuality. When we say something objectively is not actual, it is similar to say that they do not exist sufficiently to satisfy the entirety of the conscious experience, but is sufficient to satisfy the imagination.

As such we can say that there is 0Xa+ and 1Xa+, with 0 being objective non-actuality and 1 being objective actuality. So, is 1Xa+ replaced by 0Xa+ in the process of change? No, because at a, there is (1Xa+)a and at b there is no longer that object, but there is (0Xa+)b. The first word means that at point a, Xa+ is the current condition. The second word means that at point b, Xa+ is no longer the condition, or is not the condition. So, we cannot say that 1Xa+ disappears and 0Xa+ appears.

Instead, the condition is that totally different objects at totally different points of time exist. An object at a clearly has a symbol of 0 at b, and vice versa. An object at a is only 1 at a, and likewise for b. As such we may conclude one fact from this brief analysis. That from a total perspective, all objects are different and it seems there is no flow or change at all. However, it is also true that this static appearance is actually the very description of change from its totality.

For the description of change to be complete, we must introduce 2 critical elements, the element of the present and the element of consciousness. The present does flow or objects flow through the present, and so consciousness is attached to the present. By the flow of such we have the concept of time. Previously we simply lay out the full existences of time, but with the introduction of the present, then we can see only one time at a time.

We would have then a relative present and an absolute present. A relative present is the present of a and b. The absolute present is simply the present as it is, which changes all the time. Let us examine the change of present from a to b. At present a, all of b and any object at b is still objectively non-actual, as such they possess the status of 0 or effectively don’t exist. At present b, all of b suddenly comes into objective actuality. However, recognize that we still use the concept of relative present, the present at a, and the present at b.

At my time of writing, it is 17.52, assume this time to be a, and one hour later at 18.52 will be b. Now at my absolute present, anything at 18.52 is still in objective non-actuality. When 18.52 comes, my absolute present becomes b, and so anything at a, that is 17.52 will be in the objective non-actuality instead. Then it seems by the idea of an absolute present, the law of eternity ceases to be. Yet the absolute present is less complete than the relative present, which fully describes different presents relative to their points of time.

At first, it seems that it is simply objects flowing through this absolute present. Yet we acknowledge that the absolute present at a and the absolute present at b are different presents, such that if that is described in totality, what flows? Let us review the idea again, at a, if we imagine b, b is still in objective non-actuality, but it is such only at a. When we do arrive at b, objective actuality becomes the condition of b. While a is objectively non-actual but also only at b, at a it is objectively actual.

However, when the absolute present is a, b is not the absolute present, and when the absolute present arrives at b, b attains the absolute present. As such it seems from a perspective of absolute present, there is some destruction and creation. Yet we can possibly imagine “absolute present b” at a, thus preserving the existence of the absolute present of b even from point a, we can simply label it with 0. With the previous notation we then have (0b)a, and (1b)b.

We can then apply infinite labels of 0, 1, a, and b as we attempt to pinpoint the exact object as we expand our imagination and thinking. What we end up with are still 2 different objects flowing through the absolute present, or some sort of final present. We can apply infinite layers of present and infinite properties, but the basic meaning is the same, that there is the phenomenon of change, objects flowing through actuality or the present or whatever we desire to name it.

The fact that we can describe all objects as different according to their space-time properties and ascribe them to their space-time properties allows us to conclude that all objects do exist eternally. Loss or destruction and creation are then the result of the local perspective. Destruction and creation are relative to the present and to our own consciousness, but from a total perspective, there is no such thing. In finality, we can say that change and time are all features of local consciousness and not of realistic or universal consciousness which extends through all time and practically does not encounter any actual change. As such being would see all of time at once.

Interactive Change

This subtopic is hopefully simpler than the first subtopic and also simpler than the Indonesian expounding of the same subtopic. The question of interactive change acknowledges that in the local experience of change there is such a thing as interaction. When in my personal system, there is no such mention of interaction. This is because change is change regardless of what form it is, and by the idea of extrinsic property, change of one is the change of all.

As such we usually examine change as the property of the entire absolute object or stream of change. It is the different objects as a whole of the absolute object system instead of individual relative objects. However, we can still explain interaction as the interaction between relative objects which contact each other either directly or indirectly and change each other in such a way. It is important to understand that the change is categorical, as a relative object is simply creating a category, that is a relative object, which supposedly is labelled with “absolute present”, and also labelled with the intrinsic property, and so the contents would naturally change in the presence of an interaction.

Interaction change is when 2 relative objects encounter each other and changes each other intrinsically. For example, we take 2 balls positioned near each other. One of them X is moving towards the second ball Y. X hits Y, changes direction and Y begins to move because of X. Here there is a change of intrinsic property for the objects, that is the contents of the category we name completely as “Intrinsic X at absolute present” and “Intrinsic Y at absolute present” change as the absolute present changes and the intrinsic properties of X and Y changes while maintaining some sort of similarity. That is the brief explanation of interaction.

Streams of Change

The concept of streams of change is based on the idea of absolute object and is directly tied to it. An absolute object and a stream of change mean and refer to the same phenomenon in reality, but to different aspects. The absolute object refers to the property that the limits of an object are absolute. The stream of change refers to the idea that the object changes in a very unique and specific manner involving all of the original objects and objects derived from such objects.

2 streams of change then by definition would contain a different set of objects from each other. These objects are mutually exclusive, meaning they are not contained within the other stream of change. We can establish a difference between similar objects by stating that they are from different streams of change. An object X in stream A and an object X in stream B are already 2 different objects, despite all other similarities.

A stream of change can also be compared to the idea of a universe or a multiverse. It is only that if system of universes can interact with each other, they are then part of a single stream of change. Where as if the reverse is true, then each special universe can be treated as separate streams of change. A good analogy is a set of rivers which will never meet each other either through the ocean or any uniting body of water. They are all separate and will never meet, because if they do, they are part of the same river system.

Closing

We have fully discussed the 3 new concepts of change, that is the full description of change in light of eternity and extrinsic properties, interaction in the light of philosophical change, and the streams of change. In summary of such concepts, change is a phenomenon of the local present which is visible only through the limited conscious being, interaction is also a local phenomenon of categories, and streams of change are mutually exclusive with each other. With that, this essay is declared to be done.