Originally posted by VoidSpirit
nothing really "dies," it just changes form. time is not concerned with these change, time is only relevant with relative movement. it doesn't matter if the movement being measured is composed of matter, energy or completely theoretical.

these changes are purely coincidental from the viewpoint of human perception.


[quote]The process of aging is ...[text shortened]... he singularity and one or more external unknowns (perhaps other singularities).

Edit: “nothing… …theoretical.”

Set yourself ablaze and find out on your own whether or not the change of your form herenow is not the irreversible death of your form/being herenow! Your form becoming energy means neither that you will not be dead, nor that you will be somehow alive;

Kindly please explain how the relative movement can take place out of a given spacetime; also, since the movement being measured is composed either of energy or matter, and since energy and matter are mutually dependent, why do you think that time is not matter dependent?



Edit: “it is coincidental because aging doesn't exist. even the existence of orthogonal epistemic objects are purely coincidental. time only describes the relative positions of the objects being observed.”

If “aging” was not factual, the current form of each observer at any given spacetime would be immutable.
On the other hand, methinks the Euclidian definition of time is very narrow; I perceive time more like a way to examine the phenomena-in-flux, so to me time is rather the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole. Therefore, I do not use time solely in order to describe the relative positions of the objects being observed.


Edit: “you… … coincidental.”

I see that, according to your Euclidean view, time is treated as universal, constant and independent of the state of motion of an observer. However, time is neither universal, nor constant, not independent of the state of motion of an observer: for, how time can be separated from the three dimensions of space, since the observed rate at which time passes for a causal field depends on the causal field’s properties (its motion and velocity included) relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time? How exactly the elements in a “space” clump together to form “coincidental shapes” at a given “time” that is separated from the three spatial co-ordinates? Where exactly do you put the entity that observes the state of motion of these elements, if not in a spacetime continuum? How can you even think right now of a… “continuum of space alone” if you don’t locate yourself herenow (in a spacetime continuum, that is)?


Edit: “it is theoretically possible that if all of "space" is compressed into a singularity, and there is absolutely no motion of any sort, then there would be no time, but since we had a big bang it must mean that there was time.”

If we really have a big bang, it means simply that the observable spacetime became observable when the big bang occurred; we simply cannot go further than the singularity. Our falsifiable variations start from this point, and not with non-falsifiable speculations as regards what we think as “existent” in the singularity
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Maya, the Floating World, is real and arises when we do not perceive that the Quantum Karmic (Quantum Cause-Effect) Reality is neither reduced in parts nor differentiated in different entities. Maya is perceived (falsely; as if it were inherently existent) because it is the result of our consciousness whenever we collapse the wavefunction. The physical ...[text shortened]... hat mind and atman are different. When in, singularity.
What is Your knowledge?

Namaste
😵

I drew on that analogy in order to make sure I end up understanding you: “code-switching”, as it were. Are you saying that there is a metaphysical (certainly an epistemological) “singularity”, analogous to the cosmological singularity*— beyond which we cannot get? And that a great deal of the Atman-Brahman philosophizing (as well as ,say, Te-Tao philosophizing) is a mistaken attempt to speculate beyond that “singularity”? Just as it is a mistake to speculate beyond the observer-universe as it is (tathata)? And partly, at least, because of the recursive, self-looping nature of “observer-observed” (which lots of Zen koans point to)?

I want to address, though, another question, just as another piece: How does your view not reduce to solipsism? In the nondualistic framework that we both share, it strikes me that that is a fair question, and I hadn’t thought about it before.

Thanks for your patience, old friend. I am trying to add new perspective (and its language) to my own non-dualistic view (which I sometimes call, perhaps redundantly, “gestaltic non-dualism”—what I see here is that you are describing that gestalt as the observer-universe itself, and, re atman/Brahman again, that such formulations tend to present an artificial duality between figure-ground.

Namaste.
____________________________________________________

* I understand that I am artificially separating categories here.

Originally posted by vistesd
I drew on that analogy in order to make sure I end up understanding you: “code-switching”, as it were. Are you saying that there is a metaphysical (certainly an epistemological) “singularity”, analogous to the cosmological singularity*— beyond which we cannot get? And that a great deal of the Atman-Brahman philosophizing (as well as ,say, Te-Tao philosoph ...[text shortened]... __________________________

* I understand that I am artificially separating categories here.

Edit: “Are you saying that there is a metaphysical (certainly an epistemological) “singularity”, analogous to the cosmological singularity*— beyond which we cannot get?”

Yes;


Edit: “And that a great deal of the Atman-Brahman philosophizing (as well as ,say, Te-Tao philosophizing) is a mistaken attempt to speculate beyond that “singularity”?”

Yes;


Edit: “Just as it is a mistake to speculate beyond the observer-universe as it is (tathata)?”

Yes;


Edit: “And partly, at least, because of the recursive, self-looping nature of “observer-observed” (which lots of Zen koans point to)?”
Yes;


Edit: “I want to address, though, another question, just as another piece: How does your view not reduce to solipsism? In the nondualistic framework that we both share, it strikes me that that is a fair question, and I hadn’t thought about it before.”

Of course it is a fair question! I do not argue that Maya is an illusion; I argue that Maya is both real and empty and that it has to be taken seriously. I need a Map as anybody else, I acknowledge the existence of the Territory and I acknowledge that the Map and the Territory are not the same.
Yes, solipsism is an extremely powerful tool for attaining gnosis, but there are many other powerful tools too. Taking the Void as the Way and seeing the Way as Void, Spirit is Void so things are perceived in an all-encompassing sense


Edit: “…what I see here is that you are describing that gestalt as the observer-universe itself, and, re atman/Brahman again, that such formulations tend to present an artificial duality between figure-ground.”

Yes. Instead of clinging on an absolute Yin Yang I activate Gankyil and when I am done I move on, remembering that Spirit is Void;



I thank you for your patience too and I only hope that, when we are talking about this and that, you feel as much pleasure as I do
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “Are you saying that there is a metaphysical (certainly an epistemological) “singularity”, analogous to the cosmological singularity*— beyond which we cannot get?”

Yes;


Edit: “And that a great deal of the Atman-Brahman philosophizing (as well as ,say, Te-Tao philosophizing) is a mistaken attempt to speculate beyond that “singularity”?”

...[text shortened]... I only hope that, when we are talking about this and that, you feel as much pleasure as I do
😵

…and I only hope that, when we are talking about this and that, you feel as much pleasure as I do

Absolutely!!! And I think I’ve got your understanding now. As you know, I am a bit of a nomad (within the context of non-dualism), and I search out different expressions. Sometimes, however, I get lost and need a “return to roots” again—and often, you help me to both expand my understanding and to re-member those roots.

Currently, I am exploring the Rastafarian expressions that are often quite nondualistic (as they have evolved and branched out, in the somewhat anarchical way of RastafarI) behind the outward forms that are often what social scientists report, at least in the earlier works (exception: Joseph Owens’ Dread); later work goes deeper. In the “word-sound-power” of RastafarI is the phrase “I-and-I” (often abbreviated as “InI” ) to indicate both the nonseparability and the expressed forms; and InI is often a name for god as the whole, as well as a personal self-reference, in addition to its substitution for “we”. Rastas use “I-language”, in part, to de-objectify their perspective and to recognize the subjectivity of the other. Some of this (the Rasta lingo called “Iyaric” ) comes out of the peculiarities of Jamaican patois (where, for example, “me” is often used for the first-person subjective as well as the objective). From that context, it becomes apparent that the Rasta “I” points beyond the ego-self (the “small i” of Zen).

In conversation, rather than say “Thank you”, for example, I might say “InI thank the I.” (As you can see, this is a linguistic move beyond Buber’s “I and Thou”, though Buber had the same de-objectification of the other in mind.)

It’s a complex viewpoint, that I can’t do (and am not doing) justice to here. But when Bunny Wailer, in his Blackheart Man album, sings—

“In the beginning there was just one concept,
and that concept was ‘I’…”,

…the background context fits quite well with the “observer universe”. He is not referring to separable ego-self-construct, but poetically engaging in that de-objectification project (and you can see a bit where my question on solipsism is coming from). [NOTE: There is no orthodoxy in Rasta, so this may not be a universal view, but I am convinced, based on my studies, that it is a prominent view—rather as “theological” kabbalah is a prominent, but not universal, view in Judaism.] Rastas may also refer to the other as “Jah”, there name for god (which, again, may be used quite non-dualistically), since none of us are separable from the “universal observer” (and I recognize the limitations of that phrase!).

So, with that, Jah, InI hope that all is Irie with the I! 🙂

And I will let this thread continue on its original track...

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “nothing… …theoretical.”

Set yourself ablaze and find out on your own whether or not the change of your form herenow is not the irreversible death of your form/being herenow! Your form becoming energy means neither that you will not be dead, nor that you will be somehow alive;

my form is coincidental. the elementary substance of which i'm made does not age.

Kindly please explain how the relative movement can take place out of a given spacetime; also, since the movement being measured is composed either of energy or matter, and since energy and matter are mutually dependent, why do you think that time is not matter dependent?

you're still fixated on the idea of "spacetime." i already made clear the distinction between the two. movement is not composed of only energy or matter and time is not dependent on either.

If “aging” was not factual, the current form of each observer at any given spacetime would be immutable.

there is no spacetime, ergo the problem of immutability also does not exist. particles move. if you call that movement "aging" then you've created a coincidental concept. aging as you know it is just clumps of matter/energy changing position. that actual matter/energy hasn't aged, it has just moved.

On the other hand, methinks the Euclidian definition of time is very narrow; I perceive time more like a way to examine the phenomena-in-flux, so to me time is rather the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole. Therefore, I do not use time solely in order to describe the relative positions of the objects being observed.

yet, that's exactly what you're doing. your describing the positions of objects from your relative position. the past is a recording of history, not time. the present is time unfolding and the future is a projected estimation.

I see that, according to your Euclidean view, time is treated as universal, constant and independent of the state of motion of an observer. However, time is neither universal, nor constant, not independent of the state of motion of an observer: for, how time can be separated from the three dimensions of space, since the observed rate at which time passes for a causal field depends on the causal field’s properties (its motion and velocity included) relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time? How exactly the elements in a “space” clump together to form “coincidental shapes” at a given “time” that is separated from the three spatial co-ordinates? Where exactly do you put the entity that observes the state of motion of these elements, if not in a spacetime continuum? How can you even think right now of a… “continuum of space alone” if you don’t locate yourself herenow (in a spacetime continuum, that is)?

i have not treated time as a universal constant. i have always treated it as an abstract measurement of relative positions between two or more observation points or have you not been reading what i've been saying?

as a simple analogy, think of time as the flowing of wind. the speed at which wind flows can dilate or contract depending on the medium through which it's flowing. for example, it will slow down when traveling through trees and speed up when traveling downhill, yet it doesn't need trees or valleys to exist, nor do the trees and valleys need the wind to exist.

can't really do much more with that analogy, but i hope it helps a little to know where i'm coming from when i talk about time.

If we really have a big bang, it means simply that the observable spacetime became observable when the big bang occurred;

it means the universe became observable from points within space. it is also possible that prior to the big bang, if there was movement within the singularity, there would be points of observation within the singularity itself.

we simply cannot go further than the singularity. Our falsifiable variations start from this point, and not with non-falsifiable speculations as regards what we think as “existent” in the singularity
😵

if there was no movement within the singularity then we would have to go beyond it to define a theoretical object that triggered the big bang, and we would have to take time with us into that theoretical beyond.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]…and I only hope that, when we are talking about this and that, you feel as much pleasure as I do

Absolutely!!! And I think I’ve got your understanding now. As you know, I am a bit of a nomad (within the context of non-dualism), and I search out different expressions. Sometimes, however, I get lost and need a “return to roots” again—and often, y ...[text shortened]... that all is Irie with the I! 🙂

And I will let this thread continue on its original track...[/b]

I like this approach😵

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
my form is coincidental. the elementary substance of which i'm made does not age.

[quote]Kindly please explain how the relative movement can take place out of a given spacetime; also, since the movement being measured is composed either of energy or matter, and since energy and matter are mutually dependent, why do you think that time is not matter de ...[text shortened]... he big bang, and we would have to take time with us into that theoretical beyond.

Edit: “my form is coincidental. the elementary substance of which i'm made does not age.”

Methinks your current form is not coincidental but an orthogonal phenomenon in flux that came into being dew to specific conditions and a specific cause-effect process at a given spacetime. This current form of yours is aging and at a given spacetime it will dissolve into quantum uncertainty.
What is the immutable elementary substance from which you believe that you are made of?


Edit: “you're still fixated on the idea of "spacetime." i already made clear the distinction between the two. movement is not composed of only energy or matter and time is not dependent on either.”

I have no fixations, that’s why I evaluate the way you think. The distinction you made earlier does not hold and your definition of time is not scientifically accepted. Time envelops the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects. Time is not used solely the way you appear to think. So, kindly please let me know the source that eased you to come up with your conclusion. Also, kindly please define “movement” and “motion”.


Edit: “there is no spacetime, ergo the problem of immutability also does not exist. particles move. if you call that movement "aging" then you've created a coincidental concept. aging as you know it is just clumps of matter/energy changing position. that actual matter/energy hasn't aged, it has just moved.”

Spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum, it is a mapping.
Particles do move, but I do not evaluate this movement as aging. As aging, I define the accumulation of changes in an observer over time. So aging as I know it, is not clumps of matter/energy changing positions -is deterioration of the form of any phenomenon in flux.
So, what exact balance of “matter/energy” took place and in which continuum, what exact substance of “matter” and what exact substance of “energy” “changed positions” and in which continuum, as regards your form at the spacetime in which you were just born and the herenow? Where exactly “was” your form back then and where to it “is” right now?
😵

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
my form is coincidental. the elementary substance of which i'm made does not age.

[quote]Kindly please explain how the relative movement can take place out of a given spacetime; also, since the movement being measured is composed either of energy or matter, and since energy and matter are mutually dependent, why do you think that time is not matter de ...[text shortened]... he big bang, and we would have to take time with us into that theoretical beyond.

Edit: “yet, that's exactly what you're doing. your describing the positions of objects from your relative position. the past is a recording of history, not time. the present is time unfolding and the future is a projected estimation.”

I am not doing such a thing because I do not describe the position of my epistemic objects!
If the “parts" of time have own-being just in the present, as you appear to believe, your conception of time loses its coherence. The past cannot be independent from the present because it would be nonsensical if it does not terminate in the present and future. On the other hand, if "the past" is considered to produce “history out of a given time that right now is not existent” as you implied, "the present" and "the future" would be already included in the dynamism of the past and could therefore not be properly said to have separate being –but they have, as it is indicated by the phenomena-in-flux and the causal fields.
Furthermore, if the present and the future are separate from the past the way you stated, then their absolute unconnectedness leaves them uncaused, independent and without reference to the past (and, since the notions of present and future imply a relation to the past, this is self-contradictory). Therefore, the present and future do not exist the way you think they exist, because neither identity with nor difference from the past is sufficient to establish the reality of the present and future the way you appear to believe as sufficient.

Now, if time is indeed continuously fleeting as you think, what are the absolute static components of it that you experienced or you deduced according to some theory of reality? According to your metaphysic beliefs, you appear to hold that a "static moment of time is real”, however this “time” cannot longer count as time; time in and of itself cannot be grasped.

So time cannot be considered to be a self-existing thing that is somehow not dependent on other existing objects (energy and matter the way I proposed earlier), because neither there are independent phenomena in flux and causal fields within the observer universe, nor could time be itself truly independent as long as it remained defined by its relation to such supposed entities.

We both know that time is not a self-existing substratum in which equally independent things endure or independent events occur. Of course, although I deny the independent existence of time and the possibility that there is any coherent way of grasping or expressing our time experience in terms of the flow of an independent substratum to reality, I do not deny the unmediated experience of change. I do not reject the temporal phenomena, that is, but only your hypothesis that time, phenomena in flux and their mutual dependence are accurately perceived as if they were independent entities. My knowledge is this: There is only a changing of things that "is" the sole change over time.
😵

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
my form is coincidental. the elementary substance of which i'm made does not age.

[quote]Kindly please explain how the relative movement can take place out of a given spacetime; also, since the movement being measured is composed either of energy or matter, and since energy and matter are mutually dependent, why do you think that time is not matter de ...[text shortened]... he big bang, and we would have to take time with us into that theoretical beyond.

Edit: “i have not treated time as a universal constant. i have always treated it as an abstract measurement of relative positions between two or more observation points or have you not been reading what i've been saying?”

I concluded that, when you defined the time as an “abstract measurement of relative positions between two or more observation point”, you was talking about a universal system of measurement (seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, and years etc, a counting system based on the movement of our planet around it's axis and the sun etc). So I concluded that you accept the standard Euclidean definition.
Your illustration (time/wind) does not work because the wind needs an atmosphere etc etc in order to exist, it does not exist separated from other specific causal fields; so your conception of time is to me nonsensical.


Edit: “it means the universe became observable from points within space. it is also possible that prior to the big bang, if there was movement within the singularity, there would be points of observation within the singularity itself.”

But the universe can become observable solely after its manifestation (after the big bang), because prior to big bang there is no way to observe it! Our events horizon ends at the barrier of the singularity; speculations about what exactly can exist in the singularity are rejected as nonsensical speculations;


Edit: “if there was no movement within the singularity then we would have to go beyond it to define a theoretical object that triggered the big bang, and we would have to take time with us into that theoretical beyond.”

No way herenow to go beyond the singularity; the theologians tried it many times and they ended up superstitious. Surely I will not define a theoretical epistemic object and then come up with an unhealthy monster built on my chimera. I use the state of the art scientific facts and evidence, I evaluate them at every level all the way down and I say that, for the time being, I don’t know;


Namaste
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “my form is coincidental. the elementary substance of which i'm made does not age.”

Methinks your current form is not coincidental but an orthogonal phenomenon in flux that came into being dew to specific conditions and a specific cause-effect process at a given spacetime. This current form of yours is aging and at a given spacetime it will di the herenow? Where exactly “was” your form back then and where to it “is” right now?
😵

you remain fixated on the idea of "spacetime" but at least you've now drawn a distinction between the concept of aging and time and this is a good sign so i'll address some of your queries.

What is the immutable elementary substance from which you believe that you are made of?

i don't "believe" i'm made of anything at all. what i accept that i'm made of with my current level of understanding is the same elementary substance of which everything in this universe, including the vacuum of space is made.

I have no fixations, that’s why I evaluate the way you think. The distinction you made earlier does not hold and your definition of time is not scientifically accepted.

what is scientifically accepted is irrelevant when discussing theoretical concepts that go beyond what is currently known.

Time envelops the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.

the units of measurement used are purely circumstantial human attempts to log the series of events that transpire around them. movement of objects happen even if there is no sentience around to quantify or record anything.

Also, kindly please define “movement” and “motion”.

i refer you to webster. you need be concerned with only the primary definitions of these terms.

Spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum, it is a mapping.

that mapping is incidental. it provides explanations useful from the human perspective.

Spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum, it is a mapping.
Particles do move, but I do not evaluate this movement as aging. As aging, I define the accumulation of changes in an observer over time. So aging as I know it, is not clumps of matter/energy changing positions -is deterioration of the form of any phenomenon in flux.

the accumulation of changes in form are circumstantial, as is the idea of deterioration of the form. forms don't deteriorate, they change.

So, what exact balance of “matter/energy” took place and in which continuum, what exact substance of “matter” and what exact substance of “energy” “changed positions” and in which continuum, as regards your form at the spacetime in which you were just born and the herenow? Where exactly “was” your form back then and where to it “is” right now?

as there is no "spacetime," the elementary substances that compose my form are in constant flux. they are moving as i'm typing this and they will be someplace else when you get around to reading it.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “yet, that's exactly what you're doing. your describing the positions of objects from your relative position. the past is a recording of history, not time. the present is time unfolding and the future is a projected estimation.”

I am not doing such a thing because I do not describe the position of my epistemic objects!
If the “parts" of time h ...[text shortened]... is this: There is only a changing of things that "is" the sole change over time.
😵

wow, that certainly is a whole lot of bunkum. a correction needs to be made however. i do not consider time, the past, present or future as separate things. i have not said that time is self-existing. i have said it is an abstract association of relative movement between two or more observation points. the observation points can be real or imagined, physical or theoretical.

i'm not quiet sure what argument you are trying to make, but whatever it is, you have not formulated anything that throws my initial position on time into crisis.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “i have not treated time as a universal constant. i have always treated it as an abstract measurement of relative positions between two or more observation points or have you not been reading what i've been saying?”

I concluded that, when you defined the time as an “abstract measurement of relative positions between two or more observation poin ound it's axis and the sun etc). So I concluded that you accept the standard Euclidean definition.

i don't see how you derived that conclusion from my statement.

Your illustration (time/wind) does not work because the wind needs an atmosphere etc etc in order to exist, it does not exist separated from other specific causal fields; so your conception of time is to me nonsensical.

i did say it was a simple analogy and i could only take it so far. it was sufficient to illustrate the points i have been making.

But the universe can become observable solely after its manifestation (after the big bang), because prior to big bang there is no way to observe it!

not true. if there was movement within the singularity, then it would be possible to observe it from points within the singularity.

if there as no movement within the singularity, the the singularity itself must have been an elementary particle and we must look outside of the singularity for phenomena that destroyed it and caused the expansion of space that we observe now.

Our events horizon ends at the barrier of the singularity; speculations about what exactly can exist in the singularity are rejected as nonsensical speculations;

says you.

No way herenow to go beyond the singularity; the theologians tried it many times and they ended up superstitious.

well fear not. scientists managed to theorize about it without ending up superstitious.

Surely I will not define a theoretical epistemic object and then come up with an unhealthy monster built on my chimera. I use the state of the art scientific facts and evidence, I evaluate them at every level all the way down and I say that, for the time being, I don’t know;

i can go with that. don't think that this discussion is anything by speculative thought. it can be nothing else when talking about a little understood phenomena we call time.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i don't see how you derived that conclusion from my statement.

Your illustration (time/wind) does not work because the wind needs an atmosphere etc etc in order to exist, it does not exist separated from other specific causal fields; so your conception of time is to me nonsensical.

i did say it was a simple analogy and i could only ta ...[text shortened]... hought. it can be nothing else when talking about a little understood phenomena we call time.

So, according to Webster, motion is
a: an act, process, or instance of changing place : MOVEMENT b: an active or functioning state or condition <set the divorce proceedings in motion>.
And movement is
a (1): the act or process of moving; especially: change of place or position or posture (2): a particular instance or manner of moving.

You said that time “is an abstract association of relative movement between two or more observation points. the observation points can be real or imagined, physical or theoretical.” It follows that this abstract association cannot take place in separation of “two or more observation points real or imagined, physical or theoretical”.
I argue that if these observation points are indeed real and/ or physical, they are real epistemic objects that are parts of the observer universe, therefore they are by definition either matter or energy; if the observation points are imagined and/ or theoretical, they are by definition accepted (for the sake of a specific theory of reality) as if they were real causal fields or real epistemic objects that are parts of the observer universe. Hence, time the way you define it, is always associated with matter/ energy.



Edit: “what i accept that i'm made of with my current level of understanding is the same elementary substance of which everything in this universe, including the vacuum of space is made.”

Yes, yes, and earlier you said: “The elementary substance of which i'm made does not age”. This means neither that the current form of yours is not aging, nor that at a given spacetime it will not dissolve into quantum uncertainty.


Edit: “what is scientifically accepted is irrelevant when discussing theoretical concepts that go beyond what is currently known.”

No. When discussing theoretical concepts that go beyond of what is known, one has to keep in mind what is original, falsifiable and verifiable and what is not. Next thing you will tell me is that we are forced to invent a G-d and accept that this entity is real because we ignore the primal cause;


Edit: “the units of measurement used are purely circumstantial human attempts to log the series of events that transpire around them. movement of objects happen even if there is no sentience around to quantify or record anything.”

For the movement of objects you ignore, you cannot comment
😵

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i don't see how you derived that conclusion from my statement.

Your illustration (time/wind) does not work because the wind needs an atmosphere etc etc in order to exist, it does not exist separated from other specific causal fields; so your conception of time is to me nonsensical.

i did say it was a simple analogy and i could only ta ...[text shortened]... hought. it can be nothing else when talking about a little understood phenomena we call time.

Edit: “the accumulation of changes in form are circumstantial, as is the idea of deterioration of the form. forms don't deteriorate, they change.”

Yes, I understand dependent origination; but I said that form dissolves into quantum uncertainty. The being that was defined previously by its specific form does not exist anymore because its form ceased irreversibly to exist in the way it existed previously. This exact loss of being is the complete deterioration of the specific form of a specific being. This accumulation of the changes in this specific form, along with the deterioration of this specific form, is not only factual but the cornerstone of dukkha.


Edit: “as there is no "spacetime," the elementary substances that compose my form are in constant flux. they are moving as i'm typing this and they will be someplace else when you get around to reading it.”

Where exactly “was” your form when you were just born and where to it “is” right now?


Edit: “not true. if there was movement within the singularity, then it would be possible to observe it from points within the singularity. if there as no movement within the singularity, the the singularity itself must have been an elementary particle and we must look outside of the singularity for phenomena that destroyed it and caused the expansion of space that we observe now.”

Where did you find it?!? Either you misunderstand and misuse the term “singularity” (in the context of our discussion a singularity will always form once an event horizon forms), or you have to be specific and continue this conversation on the basis of a specific super theory with original, falsifiable and verifiable predictions;


Edit: “well fear not. scientists managed to theorize about it without ending up superstitious.”

Who are these scientists and what are their theories of reality?
😵

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
wow, that certainly is a whole lot of bunkum. a correction needs to be made however. i do not consider time, the past, present or future as separate things. i have not said that time is self-existing. i have said it is an abstract association of relative movement between two or more observation points. the observation points can be real or imagined, ...[text shortened]... er it is, you have not formulated anything that throws my initial position on time into crisis.

You said that "the past is a recording of history, not time. the present is time unfolding and the future is a projected estimation.” I explained you in detail why your thesis does not hold
😵