Time simply does not exist

A concept is an idea, non-physical. Matter is physical, having material substance. And "Nothing" doesn't exist.

"Material substance" is but an idea within an idea. We have absolutely no indication that the distinction 'physical' has any value outside our perception.

ok, that is your opinion and I respect that. But I live in a realm of 'touchable' substances and non-touchable ideas 'concepts'. Imagining a giant sheep hurtling through space writing a crime novel doesn't give it physical properties- it is an idea and likely lacking in physical properties...

You live in a realm that is shaped by what you believe. Our senses do not see everything, and our brain deletes information that doesn't help the coherency and continuity of our experience.

There is a simple way to explain it; if you have an old clock with a minute hand and a second hand, and you look at the second hand ticking along, you see it change with even intervals.
But if you then look away from the clock, and then quickly look back at it, it will seem that the second hand hangs a while on the digit it's on when your eyes find it, before it resumes it's even tick.
That happens because when your eyes move between their current position and the second hand, there is a blur, which the brain deletes. It fills the gap with the first thing the eyes see immediately after the blur, making it appear you see the clock before you actually see it.

Time is a part of duration, a duality. Becoming-time Duality. They are joined in reality. Becoming and time are real. Becoming is the property of matter to experiment changes and time is the successive extension of phenomena. But we perceive time as an illusion. We know by intuition an interval or period of time.

How can you make that claim when there are no night and day in outer space? There is no measurement to be taken in infinity. It's all a human concept.

Cicerone:
What about stars and galaxies? These have movements.

But those so-called "movements" are only measured by humans according to our interpretation.

That's Science and therefore you don't believe in Science.

Who said I don't believe in science?

FYI, science is strictly for use by humans; defined by humans, interpreted by humans, and perceived by humans.

It has no value outside of human perception.

Cicerone:
How old are you?, How you reached that age?, That was a process that takes time.

My age has to do with human understanding and knowledge. Why do you need to know how old I am? Outside the human sphere, it doesn't make any difference.

It will also be a non-issue after I'm gone. Some people I have come in contact with during my lifetime may remember me or not. That is of no consequence as it pertains to time. Only humans measure time.

... and understand it.

You're right; it's all human, human culture. In outer space there is no value in the notions of direction such as "up" and "down".
As far as I'm concerned "future" is no more than the present that is "not yet" and the "past" is no more than that which is "no longer".
There is only THIS moving moment, what we call "the present", the continually changing now.
The notion(s) of time serves different purposes. "T" of physics, and "clock time" and our subjective sense of "duration" are all useful but different.

And they are all human interpretations that has no meaning outside of humans.

Mightn't the different notions of time reference different rates or types of processes? I don't object to the idea of Time (capital "T") being regarded as a collective term for different types of time, or times. But to write off "time" as a "cultural" artifact seems an oversimplification. The word "culture" (capital or lower-case "C") is derivative of the idea of cultivation -- it is a process-laden, time-sensitive, periodizing word. To which culture are you referring?

Doesn't a culture's temporary sense of time seem as conditioned by the not-quite-defined phenomenon it fails to sum up, as much as, if not more than, it serves to extend that idea of "time" (or, similarly, as it serves as an example of the declining or past example of --)?

This "moving moment" -- has "the present" ever been a cultural artifact? How so? Can a culture hope to capture more than "the recent past", even in today's lightning fast media? If culture has no more access to being than this, then it is merely an image of what "isn't". Yes, no? By your definition, it seems that if time is nothing but a perpetual present, cultures are meaningless, and if cultures define our sense of time, then the "present" is meaningless. I don't agree with either of those qualifications. Doesn't the "concept" and perception of time seem a little more complicated than such strict definitions?

Different ideas of time may be and are "useful" -- doesn't that imply a level of pragmatism that transcends the seemingly self-enclosed "cultural" or "subjective" "purpose"?



pg. 11...trololololol.





Indeed, our "senses" do not "see" everything...nor do they "smell, taste, feel, or hear" everything. But they do sense a greater range of input than our conscious mind is prepared to process. And our brain does a great deal more than "delete" that excess information, it filters it for relevant "extra-representational" data that might aid a reflex without troubling our conscious analysis of events. That is, the brain reacts to stimuli, much more quickly than our minds can sense it and/or conceptualize it. (Does that imply that process and change [the stimulus for the concept of "time"] might predate the concept of time? Ridiculous!)

But let us take this nonsensical, temporal idea of life beyond the senses a step further, hm? Surely, its only appropriate domain? The brain is fed by a circulatory system (which operates outside of time?) that provides it with vital nutrients and oxygen. Please ignore the verb "feeds", that implies a temporal process. The lungs and digestive system both interact with an environment that may not give evidence of time, but once the ingredients are "implanted" or "consumed" they must prove "useful" or the brain dies -- although only based on the heart's repetitive convulsions. Ignore that temporal implication as well, because a sense of a person's heart beat is also entirely subjective -- once a person's heart seems to stop beating she might survive, with or without mechanical assistance.

Of course, all of the organs and tissues mentioned are only phenomena observed repeatedly within the history of the the medical profession, there is no extrasensory reason to believe that they exist outside of our collective cultural domain. i mean, you and i have never seen a living human brain -- it might be no more significant to our senses than a finger-tip, and the progression of nutrients and ideas through it is apparently no more indicative of time's relevance than the heliocentric cosmos.

Besides, walnuts and brains resemble one another, right? Perhaps eating walnuts will help mental problems like melancholy and what we quaintly like to call, in this day and age, aneurysms.

Here's a thought experiment far afield from our previous mental exercises: i've had five relatives die of cancer in my adult life; and seven more have survived it, so far. Statistically, i'll have to be treated for it as well, to some degree. At each stage of the mutation, both the victims and survivors of this disease were unaware and then made aware of the progress of that disease. While it was never predictable, the development of the cancer was always measurable in hindsight...and their death or illness as a cause of it was certain -- did they die of their perceptions?



Nice touch. i don't know if we totally agree, but we agree so far... and i appreciate your contributions to this thread. It's nice to read a post from someone with a reasonable and enthusiastic, but not dogmatic, empirical bent.

i'm rooting for you -- but don't expect to win many other accolades, deserving as they are. i'm sure even you and i might disagree eventually, but nonetheless, well done. I hope you don't lose patience.

Nothing happens 'outside of time' for the simple reason that any two objects that occupy the same space establish time relative to each other. But this time is not a fixed value. It is relative to space and speed and direction and viewpoint.

But our perception of linear time, that is, the idea that the order of events we perceive is how reality unfolds, isn't necessarily accurate.

I heard of another experiment. Nerve impulses take approx. 80 milliseconds to reach the mind from the fingertips. Then there was a button that turned on a light, and the light was set to come on 40 ms after the button was pushed. The test subjects said that the light came on before they pushed the button.
That happened because the electricity traveled from the switch to the light bulb faster than the nerve impulses traveled from the finger to the brain.

This implies that there is a difference between the illness and the perception of it. But is there a difference between an object and the perception of that object?

Your wrote,

What do you mean by that? Isn't it the object of discussions to challenge what is said rather than attack the writer?

of course there is a big difference between object fact and object perspective, as being totally else in absolute ways subjectively

object fact is due to constancy which is a superior variable of existing realities, square exponentialities

but objective perspectives are totally free from objects, the more the object is real the more the perspective is present freedom totally independant away from
so when illness is the object the free fact become hell by being forced to perceive the exponential of illness known without bein able to move freely out of it

freedom energy is positive present when objects constancy increase in real superior terms
so how objective exponentiality became based on negative inferiority how infinite minus became existence growth that god enjoy bringing out individuals free stands by watching horrors growth, it is a mystery to me i confess