0
   

Does Time Exist

 
 
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 01:43 pm
Space and the transcendental subject who perceives the object through space are both a product of time. This product gathers space and the transcendental subject into an objective zone of reference. It is possible for us consciously access this zone of objectivity but it is quite impossible for us to relate the totality of it clearly to the content of our minds. Just as much as it is impossible to clearly define the content of our minds. Both space and time depend on a certain location or object in order for us to perceive them as correlating to each other.

Space as temporality is derived from the content of a direct perception. This direct perception calls into an immediate relation between the subject and object which is called Time. The question though if space makes up this immediate relation and if the only way to perceive the indirectness of an immediate relation is through a subjective perception then how can we validate time exist at all. Is time not rather in this case a product of the space that the subject perceives the object through.

So it is possible that the subject maintains the identity of a time as a non linear mode of consciousness. That is the passivity of time has no means to act upon its own discreteness or upon the subject if the subject does not act rationally on it. If this is so then does the subject have the ability to access all the parts of consciousness and the unconsciousness of his being. I think it is possible to infer that the subject is able to perceive the totality of itself but only so indirectly. Although it might appear that I as the individual can access a true understanding of the We as a communal whole it is quite impossible to do that without multiple other I's.

So if we are conscious of the totality of self and the other it is done rather unconsciously and our conscious experiences in space shape and direct time rather unconsciously. This is to say if we ever become conscious of time as time in regards to space or a specific object in space the subject perceiving time is actually unconscious of what he is actually perceiving in relation to space.

It would appear in the immediacy of this instance that space takes on the nature of time unconsciously projecting images into the consciousness and subconsciousness. In this instance seemingly subsumes time allowing us to access those things which we never have had access to in reality. But this immediacy of brought into space seemingly by the content of the mind has only a direct relation with time that we are not conscious of.

So if the semblance of space time as a direct perception of the subject to an object can only be understood in so far by the subjective then of what purpose is the objective. This is not known but the subjective is necessary in order for the objective to be abstracted and aligned to our every day ordinary lives. Though it is also necessary to say that the objective is very much so necessary for the subjectivity it only appears so because of the subject.

So in reality the question should be what are we actually thinking about when we think or what are we acting upon when we act it does not appear to be clear nor does it appear a why can ever answer why we think or the things we do. Time can only answer what will never be answered by conscious forces in space because it alone is able to perceive thing in and of themselves.

Time has a full recognition of not only what space is but why space is here in regards to the subject. Though all of this remains unconscious from our minds it is a necessity in order for our rational mind to operate as holistically as possible in our environment and settings. But it is impossible to say what time and space is essentially but it is possible that we can make inferences to what they are through our day to day observations. Although fundamentally space and time are obscured from our direct line of spatial vision we can indirectly refer to during our experiencing of the phenomenal world.

So apparently as fundamentally understood space is time and time is space both are mutually recognizing of each other but essentially both mutually exclude each other as beings independent of each other. Though it is possible to deduce a principle to ground this fundamental understanding of space it does not necessarily deduce or infer space time as exist simply and purely for itself. So it is not impossible to say something because the individual consciousness is able to relate the totality of his or her experience though it is impossible to go any further beyond those limits.

Time as Time is essentially that which is space in its totality but also in its parts. Though we are not able to consciously verify these parts they do exist a priori in the category of our minds. If this is true then the category of our minds which we assert in our experience become much more then an assertive factor in experience but also a negating force. So space as space is an entropic compositions of conscious and irrational forces which are never absolutely defined but only partially defined in relation to each other.

Time as Time is that which unconsciously composes this entropic composition of rational and irrational forces that take place in the consciousness of an individual because space is a product of time. But now it would appear Time as Time is indifferent to space as space disallowing it to relate to space as space if their is not a subject present to relate a certainty that time as presupposes in the category of our experiences. Apparently Time as Time is undivided from the abstract qualities of space but in being so it is unconsciously dividing itself into multiple component and categories.

All and All Time is an unlimited schemta which makes it appearance in the obvious and the self evident notions of our day to day observation of the spatial gaps of our subjective experience. But this unlimited schemta appears to be finite because its fundamental identity can be understood by us to exist but only in the context of what we know to exist spatially. Though the context of what we experience spatially is at times unconsciously experienced that is to say we can only experience parts of what we experience and explain only parts of why we experience them.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 940 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 02:33 pm
Sorry, but personally I find this discussion largely inchorent. If English is your second language, perhaps you might consider finding a less difficult and esoteric theoretical subject matter like the creation of the universe to discuss and practice your language skills.

As an example this sentence: "All and All Time is an unlimited schemta which makes it appearance in the obvious and the self evident notions of our day to day observation of the spatial gaps of our subjective experience.". Lost in space!

I do wish you the best and Happy New Year.
GermanIdealismGuru7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 02:47 pm
@Ragman,
Yeah I overextended that part I sometimes stretch things out more then they should be. Now to rearrange what I meant to say in the context of that sentence, I wanted to say the Time as Time in and of itself is an unlimited mode of subjective perception which appears to us as limited subjects in the obvious and self evident notions of our day to day experiences.

Cut out the rest after day to day observation and it will become more coherent. By the way what I am saying is there an unlimited and limited mode to understanding our subjective experience but we are rather unconscious of them. They act upon us as irrational or emotional forces which we have little cognizance of why they act but that they do. But that it takes an act of reason to abstract or make these irrational forces known to in relation to an immediate perception
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 08:17 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
Hmm can put that in laymans terms for us simple minded peolpe. Im interested in the subject. But I get lost reading your paragraphs Smile
GermanIdealismGuru7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 08:36 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
I am sorry for the dense language I am just saying to give an example is time a framework of our experience or is something much deeper then that. This is to say when we perceive an object through spatial perception say a tree. Then does this tree as an object point out point out to us rather indirectly and discretely that our subjective perspectives are inter-subjective. That is we perceive Time as Time through Space but unconsciously. It is more of a pyschological question is Time as Time the base of the rational in the form of the irrational and emotional responses that man produces during his perception of an object.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 08:56 pm
Time exist for all living things.
0 Replies
 
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 08:56 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
Hmm ok I went to wikipedia Smile In the philosophy of time section. Before I go any futher. Are you refering to Sir Isaac Newton description of time?
GermanIdealismGuru7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 09:14 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Yes in a way as a property of our experience? Yes if that is the case then I believe my description of time would be like to Netwon's
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 09:32 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
Aha you sit in good company about your discription of time then Smile
GermanIdealismGuru7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 09:34 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Yes I guess so as I just looked up Newton's description of time as I said that our experiences are slowly becoming indeterminate and concave in space time though this happens unconsciously. Most likely things will have the effect of being perceived in flat space time but in order for our perception to become sharper and more objective it is better if we become more intuitive then rational. Because connecting with the intuitive forces of space time will allow us to perfect our rationality.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 09:44 pm
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
yes after reading all the arguments the philosophies of time in wikipedia. I dont believe theres much I can add Smile wish I could Smile
GermanIdealismGuru7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2011 11:39 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Yes maybe not but the point is not that you are adding anything to it because as you see I added nothing just was able to develop my own perspective of what others thought. Although I did it rather incoherently I meant to take a Newtonian view of space time that space and time in and of themselves exist as discrete possibilities which we can not completely account for consciously. I think it was Goethe who said great thoughts need only be repeated in order for them to be considered great. Its not that the greats mind are adding all that much just they are repeating the critiques and adding news one to previous understandings of the world. Trying to discover the undiscovered that has always been there but ignored by others that have come before us.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 05:08 am
@GermanIdealismGuru7,
I understand what youre saying ( at least I think I do ) But in my simple mind I cant help to think of time as nothing more than a unit of mesurement. There may be more complexities to the subject than that. But I have a hard time seeing to much more than that Smile please keep posting I have seen some brillant minds in this site. Im sure theyll love some intellectual stimulation Smile
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 05:19 am
Least once every 3rd month someone comes along and ask the very same thing over and over, does time exist, see the othere damn topics and get ur answer there.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Jan, 2011 09:34 pm

NO-NO- NO- NO.... for infinity

because time IS a measurement of movement by an object , that changes position because of the object(s) themselves in a said space

or another way ;

does adding time into an equation affect the object ?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2011 01:47 am
Quote:
Does Time exist ?


Lets see...
...well that´s it, its answered ! Cool
0 Replies
 
 

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. » Does Time Exist
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/16/2021 at 03:04:08