5 edits
Originally posted by vistesdFor me, time is simply a measurement from point A to point B. The term "infinity" is simply a term derived to mean that you have no point B in which to refer. This, however, does not mean it does not exist.
I really didn't define time in the OP. And TW is getting at that, too.
Time is simply a property of a material universe. For me, the answer is obvious and that is once the material universe came to be, time came to be simply as a property of this material universe. It goes something like this, the material universe creates space which time is one of many measurements of such a "space".
As for what existed before this material universe, that is impossible to fathom. After all, we need points of reference for which to grasp a concept. For example, is it hot or cold, is it red or white, is it solid or liquid ect. ? Once we step outside the realm of our existence we cease thinking about reality and language stops. That is, the reality that we know, not that there is no "reality" beyond this material universe. In fact, in a material universe, which is in a constant state of flux, can this really be "reality" or merely an illusion of the reality behind the curtain?
Originally posted by whodeyWow! I’m going to agree with you 🙂 —with this little nit-pick:*
For me, time is simply a measurement from point A to point B. The term "infinity" is simply a term derived to mean that you have no point B in which to refer. This, however, does not mean it does not exist.
Time is simply a property of a material universe. For me, the answer is obvious and that is once the material universe came to be, time came to be s ...[text shortened]... x, can this really be "reality" or merely an illusion of the reality behind the curtain?
As soon as we even bring in that notion of “before” (and, maybe, “when” ) we are technically in error and in danger of confusion—since they themselves are time-dependent concepts.
With that nit-pick, I think you said in much fewer words what I tried to say to Epi in my last post in the Kalam thread about needing to—stop. I will leave you, however, with your questions about reality and the curtain, etc. My particular non-dualism suggests that the “illusions” are real in the sense of being actual (that tree is an actual something, whether it is exactly as my neurology represents it my brain or not), but not in terms of being separable existents—separable from the whole, or from all the intertwining relationships within (and of) that whole. That is, I think it makes sense to talk about the gulf stream, even though we cannot in any way separate it from the ocean—in which and of which it is. But, as I say, I’ll leave you with those questions because they are good ones…
* And also that I am personally still a bit unsure of defining time.
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdWe all know what the real "nit-pick" is, don't we? Its called the "God-pick"
Wow! I’m going to agree with you 🙂 —with this little nit-pick:*
As soon as we even bring in that notion of “before” (and, maybe, “when” ) we are technically in error and in danger of confusion—since they themselves are time-dependent concepts.
With that nit-pick, I think you said in much fewer words what I tried to say to Epi in my last post in th ...[text shortened]... use they are good ones…
* And also that I am personally still a bit unsure of defining time.
Edit: And I wouldn't call it a "little" nit-pick. 😛
Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that our existence is an illusion, rather, I am simply saying that there are many illusions around us keeping our eyes from the greater reality.
Nice to hear from you again BTW 😀
Originally posted by whodeyWell whodey, since you found yourself There:
We all know what the real "nit-pick" is, don't we? Its called the "God-pick"
Edit: And I wouldn't call it a "little" nit-pick. 😛
Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that our existence is an illusion, rather, I am simply saying that there are many illusions around us keeping our eyes from the greater reality.
Nice to hear from you again BTW 😀
methinks "illusions" are nothing but the products of each sentient being according to its respective specific subjectivity.
The kosmic reality is unique for all the sentient beings, but the mapping
(of the relevant reality, of the reality -the concept of Time included- each sentient being grasps according to its cognitive apparatus alone)
of each consciousness regarding this unique kosmic reality differs from consciousness to consiousness. Therefore the "illusions" are as real as it gets, as our vistesd pointed out, and should be taken seriously although they are mind-only (empty, relative, sunya); however, since they are mind-only constructions, they do not exist "somewhere out there" separated from the mind (consciousness) that triggered them into existence Simply By Noticing Them.
In specific Eastern traditions these "illusions" are assessed as "dreams", and the sentient beings that evaluate them as the sole existing reality are assessed as "delusional". This is the reason why there are many references about concepts like "illusionary worlds", "delusion" etc, that do not make the slightest sense to the Westerners simply because they are in toto allien to their philosophical substratum, like the Koan:
"In the beginning mountains, then no mountains, at last mountains again"
😵
Originally posted by vistesdOf all the little things about time, both the past and future we do seem to think
Wow! I’m going to agree with you 🙂 —with this little nit-pick:*
As soon as we even bring in that notion of “before” (and, maybe, “when” ) we are technically in error and in danger of confusion—since they themselves are time-dependent concepts.
With that nit-pick, I think you said in much fewer words what I tried to say to Epi in my last post in th ...[text shortened]... use they are good ones…
* And also that I am personally still a bit unsure of defining time.
a lot about, but 'now' seems to me to be where are the real questions are. Does
this sliver of time 'now' have a beginning and end, or is it without either?
Kelly
7 edits
Originally posted by black beetleHow can one assess that an illusion is present? If one were to see something as an illustion, and it is an illusion, it must not be a very good illusion. 😛
Well whodey, since you found yourself There:
methinks "illusions" are nothing but the products of each sentient being according to its respective specific subjectivity.
The kosmic reality is unique for all the sentient beings, but the mapping
(of the relevant reality, of the reality -the concept of Time included- each sentient being grasps accordi
"In the beginning mountains, then no mountains, at last mountains again"
😵
Really this sort of thinking can eventually lead to madness so we must pick and choose our illusions carefully and assign meaning to them in regards to our existence. As for myself, when I read the miracles of the Bible, some view them as "impossible", however, in a universe in a perpetual state of flux what does the term "impossible" mean?
I would like to amend my previous statement about the material world and the existence that lies beyond that material world. I would say that love is present in both. Love is timeless and transcends both worlds and the language we use is but an obstacle in defning it. In the end, love is really all that is "real". In short, love simply IS. Can we say the same about any other emotion or phenomenon? Is anything else "eternal"?
Originally posted by KellyJayas twhitehead said, it isn't an assumption that time was warped.
I guess if you assume time was warped and that is that, no need to look
at anything else is there?
Kelly
“....no need to look
at anything else is there? ….”
It is BECAUSE we observe such things as the wobble in Mercury's orbit that we KNOW that time was warped. It is an empirical fact, not an assumption.
We can verify the wobble in Mercury's orbit simply by observing it though a telescope.
In terms of instrument measurements, there is no way you can explain the wobble in Mercury's orbit that is caused by time being warped if the wobble in Mercury's orbit was, unlike what the equations of physics predict, NOT caused by time being warped. If you dispute this, then explain how you can explain the wobble in Mercury's orbit in terms of instrument measurements without time being warped..... -of course, you can't.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIn the wikipedia article on space it says the following:
as twhitehead said, it isn't an assumption that time was warped.
“....no need to look
at anything else is there? ….”
It is BECAUSE we observe such things as the wobble in Mercury's orbit that we KNOW that time was warped. It is an empirical fact, not an assumption.
We can verify the wobble in Mercury's orbit simply by observing it though a ...[text shortened]... in terms of instrument measurements without time being warped..... -of course, you can't.
"In the 19th and 20th centuries mathematicians began to examine non-Euclidean geometries, in which space can be said to be curved, rather than flat. According to Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, space around gravitational fields deviates from Euclidean space. Experimental tests of general relativity have confirmed that non-Euclidean space provides a better model for the shape of space."
It may be that it is something to do with space that is warped and not time
since time is a measurement.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt is 'space time' that is warped. And if we were wrong about it, your GPS would not work. The exact amount of warping involved because of the speed of the satellites and the gravity of the earth have to be taken into account when correcting for that warp on the atomic clocks on the GPS satellites.
It may be that it is something to do with space that is warped and not time
since time is a measurement.
Many of the laws of physics include a time factor. Atoms have certain characteristics based on time. That's how things like atomic clocks are possible. There are different types of such clocks that rely on different laws of physics. It is those very laws that are affected when time 'appears' to be moving faster or slower. Essentially, if there is something that is constant that is not going faster or slower when our atomic clocks do, then it sure isn't what we call time when we do or physics equations. That's why I suggested to Kelly that he give it another name. But since it would never feature in any equation, and would be invisible to any measuring apparatus etc, it really wouldn't be any use to anyone.