paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 04:52 pm
@validity,
validity wrote:
The question then is what meaning does the concept of space have if there is only one object?


... I can see the one object (or no object) scenario as "natural"; the "stopping everything from moving" scenario, however, seems to require suspension of the laws of nature as we know them (e.g., gravity) ... so approaching your question from the former perspective, that the question "What meaning does the concept of time have if there is only one object?" is just as askable seems to put space and time on equal footing here, no? ... and so if one answers the first question "Space exists independently of this single object", does that mean that the answer to the second question is "Time exists independently of this single object"? ...
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 05:15 pm
@paulhanke,
It seems we need perception for our reality to exist and yet where did we come from?

But if we take away all peceivability of the orange, doesn't the orange just become actuality. So Its potential doesn't exist, but its still there, potential for what other perceptions can make of it.
No0ne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 05:19 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
You cannot remove time by removing your measuring tool of time. Or can you? What if time was like this random oscillation. Oscillating in a pattern that recognizes duration, and random in that it actually can be divided into parts.

Actually thats silly.

Maybe time is random and flowing but in relation to different environments that we don't have perception to. We really only experience the macro world, and so time seems to flow at a constant rate. And maybe time can be conveyed as a bell curve. Its randomness increases when perceived farther away from the the maximum point, being the normal macro reality we normally perceive or have adapted to. As we get more into the micro world, and to the macro macro world there is therefore going to be more randomness in space time. Flow is a perception of order and so if it becomes more random to our perception as we get more into micro/ macro macro worlds then we do not have all the variables to see that order, "intrinsicated". Laughing

A way around this is by adding more dimensions that are not as 'strong' in our normal reality. Laughing

Subjective time must therefore be the answer if time is represented through flow/randomness via bell curve.

And objective time must therefore be the answer if time is represented through flow/randomness via exponential/linear trend.

But I guess that doesn't really answer the question. Surprised


Well when you said "You cannot remove time by removing your measuring tool of time. Or can you?"

The answer is no you can remove the conciuos oberservation or experince of time, mainly for two diffrent reason's.

The reason why it is yes, is due to the fact of the physical feeling of "Time fly's when your having fun", that feeling is caused when your mind lose's preception of time around it's body, therefore 1hour could seem like 10min.

So in a way the body had lost it's measurment of time and therefore it's perception of time was alterd, and therefore so was time, since time is really just a perception of observation by the mean's of sight, sound, feeling, smell, thought, and taste. So without those Six founding mean's of gathering information in the mean's of observation of the world around one's self, you could not experience the "Time", AKA like when your asleep, hence when you are devoided of conscious thought, sight, sound, feeling, smell, and taste, time truely fly's.

Personaly I have created method's to emulate the effect's of "Time fly's", by limiting the information that my body gather's, hence it's a form of meditation, that invoke's a sleep like state.

(*Note those method's are NOT for public use, so I will not post how I limit that information)

Now, the reason other reason why it's no...

The bodie's tool's to observe time is it's information that "Flows" from sight, smell, taste, feeling, thought, and sound, therefore if a person remove's all six of those, they would no longer experince time, yet everything around them would still experince time. Yet if the person prevent's or slow's the flow of information from those six, then they would alter there perception of time, and therefore making 1hour seem like 20min.

Yet if you cut off all six... simply you can compair it to sleeping, one second you are awake the nexted second your at your desk at work typing at your computer.... (yet you would have to pre-program your self to run in sub-consciuos mod... so you can be conciuosly in a dream and sub-conciously your body would be at work doing what you normaly do every day... In a way it's related to a form of controlable sleep walking.

Yet once again that is beyond humanly power
(*Note I'm also working on method's to emulate such :detective:AKA sleep walking, Ive so far only been able to grab a cup of water nexted to my bed and drink it, since when i go to sleep it's full, but when I awake it's empty, and I have no memory of drinking it...since all six were concoiusly enert.)
0 Replies
 
Grimlock
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 05:03 am
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
Could you follow the above?


If you are referring to "time travel" as a traversing of "potentiality" points in some eternally recurrent "closed" system, I fail to understand the histrionics you attach to the idea nor the difficulty in explaining it, unless such explanations are aimed at drunks, idiots or students.

Though perhaps I have misunderstood you.
0 Replies
 
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 06:37 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
It seems we need perception for our reality to exist and yet where did we come from?


... or maybe it's just that we need perception for our experience to exist, which is independent of anything our experience is of ? ...

EDIT:

... let's try that again ... maybe it's just that we need perception for our experience to exist, and that what our experience is of is independent of our experience ? ...
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2008 08:42 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
But if we take away all peceivability of the orange, doesn't the orange just become actuality. So Its potential doesn't exist, but its still there, potential for what other perceptions can make of it.
I have seen the terms actuality and potentiality used frequently in these forums, so it may be time to read up on them. Until I do, may I add that Quantum Theory would have us say that the particles that make up the orange will have definite properties when we observe the orange, but not before we observe it.

It sounds as though actuality and potentiality has some similarities to QT, to which I am drawn.

Would anyone kindly advise what material should I read in the pursuit of understanding actuality and potentiality? I guess I start with wiki :Glasses:
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2008 03:33 pm
@validity,
validity wrote:


It sounds as though actuality and potentiality has some similarities to QT, to which I am drawn.

Would anyone kindly advise what material should I read in the pursuit of understanding actuality and potentiality? I guess I start with wiki :Glasses:


Apparently I don't fully understand the terms either, but you can see the discussion I tried to start here.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/metaphysics/2062-actuality-potentiality-reality.html

Just don't use a dictionary, because reality isn't actuality; as the dictionaries I've looked at would say.
0 Replies
 
Sir Neuron
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 10:51 am
@Khethil,
Hello to all. There is too much to read right now.

I am not certain if I had miss the answer to this question:

If all the activities in the world had stopped, and the world was allowed to remain in existence, would you consider time in the continuation of existence?
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 02:12 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Who says there is indeed activities in that way? If you put a mouse in a maze, and make it that there is a path to the outside world.

To me the mouse really believes it is at it's own will that these actions are occurring. Yet, there was a bigger plan on his travels, and he was made to go the way we wanted.

To the mouse, there was thought(s) with purpose(s), however your thoughts guided it's actions. In the physcial realm the mouse had absolute probabilities. But really the mouse had no real choice of where it's path(s) was to end up, it was planed out on a higher level.

-BaC

Sir Neuron wrote:
Hello to all. There is too much to read right now.

I am not certain if I had miss the answer to this question:

If all the activities in the world had stopped, and the world was allowed to remain in existence, would you consider time in the continuation of existence?
Sir Neuron
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 02:36 pm
@BaCaRdi,
Sorry. I have fallen for this trap again.
Bad lauguage.

Better If I had stated Reactivty then?
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 02:57 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Well, that is again your perception, reactivity is a product of observation. It is what you want it to be, as long as it makes sense to you.

Can anyone tell you what you really sensed?

-BaC

Sir Neuron wrote:
Sorry. I have fallen for this trap again.
Bad lauguage.

Better If I had stated Reactivty then?
0 Replies
 
validity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 05:07 pm
@Sir Neuron,
Sir Neuron wrote:
Hello to all. There is too much to read right now.

I am not certain if I had miss the answer to this question:

If all the activities in the world had stopped, and the world was allowed to remain in existence, would you consider time in the continuation of existence?


If you mean everything when you use the word world, then there is no need for, nor means to measure the, passage of time. The objects still have existence.
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 05:20 pm
@validity,
I sure do, thank you for saying that;)

Welcome to Steady-State theory my friend...

Thank you Sir Fred Hoyle and the others,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/ff/Fred_Hoyle.jpg/300px-Fred_Hoyle.jpg

-BaC
validity wrote:
If you mean everything when you use the word world, then there is no need for, nor means to measure the, passage of time. The objects still have existence.
validity
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 05:44 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Welcome to Steady-State theory my friend...


I wont be staying long Smile
BaCaRdi
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 05:55 pm
@validity,
Thats your will....hehe

-BaC
validity wrote:
I wont be staying long Smile
MJA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2008 10:52 am
@BaCaRdi,
Time Machine

Imagine yourself in another dimension, a parallel universe somewhere in time. You are watching a football game, sitting on your old couch, eating a tofu hot dog and wondering if they'll ever show the cheer leaders again.

Suddenly, without notice, a loud whistle brings your mind back to the game. There's something happening, wait a minute, the refs have stopped the clock. WOW! They stopped the clock? The men in black and white move to some kind of machine, what could it be? Then BAM! you have traveled back in time. The screen in front of you is showing the history of past events, the game from multiple perceptions. Could it be? How is it possible that we have a time machine but no one knows it? You see the players playing football in the past as real as the present. Well certainly this time machine can not alter the past, you must be imagining things, as you are.

You think time machines don't exist but if they did there is a test. If it were truly a time machine it could alter the past, and so far that has not happened. Just then, the screen you are watching goes back to the referees and the present, Whew! That's cool. The time trip is over, had enough anyway. You take another bite of the dog and at the same times the official on the screen announces "after further review we are changing the call." Well you nearly spit the dog out of my mouth. Did he say they are changing the past. Before you could grasp the full potential of what had just happened, that you had witnessed a time machine that actually exists, the refs start time again by simply swinging their arms. With a huge sigh of relief you are back to the couch, back from the changed past, back to the present.

Stunned, but coherent you look down at you watch and wonder if they can do it, why can't you!

MJA

Happy Holiday
_________________
TRUTH HAS NO QUESTION OR DOUBT!
0 Replies
 
Whoever
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2008 06:45 am
@Khethil,
There is something amiss here I think. Time cannot be a measurement of change since change is impossible without time. For this reason when we question the existence of time we must question the existence of change. It would therefore be self-consistent to say that neither time nor change are real, as do the mystics, but not to say that change is real and time is not.
validity
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 02:31 am
@Whoever,
Whoever wrote:
There is something amiss here I think. Time cannot be a measurement of change since change is impossible without time. For this reason when we question the existence of time we must question the existence of change. It would therefore be self-consistent to say that neither time nor change are real, as do the mystics, but not to say that change is real and time is not.


I think the impossibleness of change without time, in the context above, is showing us that the two are one and the same. When it is said that time is not real, I think it is meant that time outside of change does not exist.
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 10:24 am
@validity,
validity wrote:
I think the impossibleness of change without time, in the context above, is showing us that the two are one and the same. When it is said that time is not real, I think it is meant that time outside of change does not exist.


... does the impossibleness of change without space also imply that space outside of change does not exist? ... that space, time, and change are one and the same? ...
Whoever
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2009 01:23 pm
@Khethil,
Conceptually they are clearly dependent on each other. They could not exist for coneceptually unstructered awareness, which is what is prior to them in mysticism.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Nature of Time
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 09:54:00