1
   

The Speed of Time.

 
 
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 04:34 pm
@Aristoddler,
"For every Perspective there is an equal and opposite Perspective."

perspective is thought.........

Whats the opposite of thought......

Enough said?

Welcome to the Buddhist/Hindi realm...
-TRoN Walk softly and carry a big stick

Stick of power....knowledge
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 02:04 am
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi;32079 wrote:
nameless wrote:
"For every Perspective there is an equal and opposite Perspective."

perspective is thought.........

No, it is not. (Ego might = thought, though)
We still 'perceive' while in a meditational, a thought-free, Zen state, thereby refuting your assertion.
You 'think' about what you perceive. You thoughtfully define and classify based on your perceptions, youPerspective. You perceive, and think about what you perceive.

'Perspective' is the included angle of observation, displaying raw information, data, to Consciousness.
'Thought' is what the brain excretes while digesting the memories of the raw data of direct perception, Perspective.

Peace
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 05:56 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
No, it is not. (Ego might = thought, though)
We still 'perceive' while in a meditational, a thought-free, Zen state, thereby refuting your assertion.
You 'think' about what you perceive. You thoughtfully define and classify based on your perceptions, youPerspective. You perceive, and think about what you perceive.

'Perspective' is the included angle of observation, displaying raw information, data, to Consciousness.
'Thought' is what the brain excretes while digesting the memories of the raw data of direct perception, Perspective.

Peace
[NO: without PERCEPTION there is NOTHING; you fail to make a distinction between the THOUGHT, and the THINKING, that is all. But PERCEPTION is BOTH....the THOUGHT lies without the THINKING, whereas the THINKING lies within the THOUGHT...PERSPECTIVE is the THOUGHT...PERSPECTING is the THINKING...hope that helps...]
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 07:14 am
@Anthrobus,
Anthrobus;32366 wrote:
nameless wrote:
(Ego might = thought, though)
We still 'perceive' while in a meditational, a thought-free, Zen state, thereby refuting your assertion.
You 'think' about what you perceive. You thoughtfully define and classify based on your perceptions, youPerspective. You perceive, and think about what you perceive.

'Perspective' is the included angle of observation, displaying raw information, data, to Consciousness.
'Thought' is what the brain excretes while digesting the memories of the raw data of direct perception, Perspective.

[NO: without PERCEPTION there is NOTHING;

Please read what I wrote a bit more carefully. Nowhere did I say that there is, or can be, 'anything' without perception. I would not. Thank you.

Quote:
you fail to make a distinction between the THOUGHT, and the THINKING, that is all.

I need make no distinction. Neither 'thought' nor 'thinking' is the same as perception. You 'think' about what you 'perceive'.

Quote:
But PERCEPTION is BOTH

Nope. Different animals.
I hate to resort to the dictionary, but as this is such a simple thing, here;

thought
–noun
1 the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.
2. a single act or product of thinking
3. a consideration or reflection
etc...

per⋅cep⋅tion
–noun
1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.
2. immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation,
3. the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.
4. Psychology. a single unified awareness derived from sensory processes while a stimulus is present.
etc...

Quote:
....the THOUGHT lies without the THINKING, whereas the THINKING lies within the THOUGHT...PERSPECTIVE is the THOUGHT...PERSPECTING is the THINKING...hope that helps...]

This is nonsense to me, and yes, that helps me understand what is going on in your thoughts.
And "perspecting" is not a word in the english language.
'Thinking' is no more than thought from a linear Perspective.

Perspective is not a verb (its a noun), it is a state of Consciousness, Conscious Perspective, us.

Again, for those that havent heard, 'direct perception' is clearly manifested/reflected in a meditational, thought free state. The more the 'thought', the less the 'direct perception', a diametrically oppositional ratio.

Thanx for the conversation.
Peace
nameless out
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 10:02 am
@Aristoddler,
SORRY: can't go for it. there is no thought-less state that has perception. That is non-sense, and as for the Dictionary, obviously you have never heard or understood that words can be constructed, and I have just constructed one, and given you its meaning. As for the Dictionary: you should stick with it, as its your Philosopher. You did hint at one correct thing though. That THINKING is LINEAR: therefore THOUGHT is CIRCULAR, thus the THINKING lies within the THOUGHT, and the THOUGHT lies without the THINKING...well done...even if you didn't know it...please don't quote silly dictionaries at me...
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 03:08 pm
@Anthrobus,
^^^ Your Perspective is noted.
I said, Good Day!
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 03:10 pm
@Aristoddler,
That's an oxymoron coming from you then: check your dictionary for help...won't you...
Doorsopen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 03:24 pm
@Anthrobus,
As concerns the discussion about the nature of nothingness, first consider the Universe, as we understand it, without us in it. This is no objective perspective by which to measure, gauge, investigate or understand the nature of this place. As an idea it will cease to exist. Without an objective perspective nothingness, as a concept, would exist. Vivre l'espirit humain!


With a little help from a recently rediscovered but fairly outdated, and often underminded source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/gen001.htm , as well as current scientific investigation:
http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sasha.Kashlinsky/BULKFLOWS/bulkflows.html
And: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/voyager_heliosphere.html
I would like to submit the following model, as a possible response to the question of measuring time:

In the beginning the singularity (as we may see it from our perspective) divided into a field of potential and a field of energy. This first event may correspond to Mr Kashlinsky's observations, or Walter Russell's inspired model for that matter. In either event, matter and light do not yet exist, only energy expanding into a field of potential in waves.
'Space' is expanding relative to the expansion of this energy, and as it expands an electromagnetic force, or polarity comes into being. These waves together with the field itself are the conduits along which light, as soon as it comes into being a rhetorical fraction of a second later, will travel.
There is no relative speed for this expansion because there is no distance to travel. Light however does have relative speed because there is now polarity and distance created by the expansion. The motion of light is only an appearance, what we are observing is in effect a source of light effecting the waves of energy which have proceeded it.
As light travels across these waves through expanding space, matter is formed within the polarity between the waves of energy and the light traveling through it, most likely gases like hydrogen first. The frequency of the waves is relative to the velocity of light which travels through it and, subsequently determines the density of the matter which is left in its wake. More and more complex matter is formed in accordance with these fluctuating wavelengths, relative to the 'density' of the fluctuations. The complex matter left behind in the wake of light travelling across space condenses into solid matter, and what one of my cited sources calls the 'firmament' is founded. In its turn, solid matter becomes ever more complex as it interacts with itself until it becomes me sitting here puzzling out how all of this came to be, and I like, my ancedent: dense-matter, effect the flow of light through these wavelengths by being, well, dense. The heavier the object the less likely light can travel through. Solid matter stops it completely and in turn absorbs the radiant vibrations thus permitting me to lie in the sun with an ice cold beer to balance my capacity for absorbing it.

Within the infinitely condensed form of all existence there is no time, there is no space, there is no light and there is no matter, but for these things to come into being there must exist a potential which, like the energy of consciousness, makes them manifest.

I humbly request that someone agree or disagree that I may release these concepts from my Mind and get on with creating some sense of reality for myself ...

And the speed of time depends on the construction of the clock used to measure it.
0 Replies
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Nov, 2008 03:33 pm
@Aristoddler,
consider the Universe, as we understand it, without us in it: you are so released, and may you go to your enlightenment, for such a universe without us in it, without an observer, simply wouldn't exist...you must understand that mind and matter are two sides to the one coin, and no [mind/matter] what the particular gradation of physical manifestation, they were always thus allied, and from the beginning of space and time...you are asking that we imagine a state without a mind...grasp that, and if you will...
0 Replies
 
Icon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Nov, 2008 02:43 pm
@Aristoddler,
I often wonder if you all truly DO get lost in your own minds or if you have a different perspective of what seems so infinitely simple to me. Razz

In all honesty, the simple answer is that we are the creators of the speed of time. We decide it. Personally. This conversation has spiraled out of control and begun to dip into the world of existentialism for which I only have one response.

2+3=Chair. Prove me wrong. You can't. It is my perspective which forms the universe.

Here it is in plain, simple english. You create a perception of the world around you. You experience each thing differently than anyone else which means that, for you, there is no constant between you and someone else. The only thing we know is that the universe REQUIRES that certain stability be maintained in order to prevent everything from mushing together (quantum entanglement) and going BOOM (Big Bang). Time is a concept created by man to give a communicative stance to motion across distance. Evaluating Time is like evaluating God, or the Devil, or Dragons, or Pixies, or Karma. We have created these terms and so we can change them to mean anything we want. Time (the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.) is as fast as you think it is.

Simple.
Doorsopen
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2008 07:53 am
@Icon,
Icon;33221 wrote:
It is my perspective which forms the universe.


Plain English: No, it is your perspective which forms your experience of the universe. Motion, Distance, Time and the universe exist outside of your individual perspective and behave as constants for the rest of us. How you may choose to slice them, as an individual, does not alter these constants, it merely alters your experience of them.

No, I cannot disprove your formula 2+3=chair, because it mixes two constant abstract values which when added form an object. This may be possible, but at the limit your equation is an incomplete thought which, in fact, indicates nothing in particular. It is only for this reason that it cannot be proved: it is not rational.
0 Replies
 
No0ne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2008 03:33 am
@Icon,
Time, Time, Time, I just typed time 3 "TIMES", oops I just typed it 6 "TIMES"

This is the basic concept...

Time, is a observation of change, and change.

Then what is age you ask?:smartass:

Humans use clocks which is a mathematical gauge system which creates observable change from a fixed start, which is used to determine the age of a thing.

A picture is a single frame of light that was captured, and is now observed as a single instant in TIME. If are entire existence never changed, we all would be observing a single instant that never changes, TIME would cease to exist.

A clock's hand wouldn't CHANGE position, you wouldn't CHANGE position, everything would seem to be frozen in time, yet truly TIME would not exist, due to the fact that there is no change.

Silly me...:rolleyes: I done it again:dots:
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2008 09:16 am
@No0ne,
I see this thread has come full circle to the basic question (or so it seems). I posed this basic question a while ago, it might be worth a look-see (thread is here)

Thanks
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Speed of Time.
  3. » Page 12
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 04:59:08