How do you define Time?

That has to do with speed eorl... Even if he were to travel very fast, it would alter the flow of his change relative to yours. But if you were not both of you still on the same "timeline", how could you make such a measurment at all?

Yes, JL, I remember you saying that before
But isn't that an old zen master's attempt to put into words what cannot be voiced?
Essentially he is saying, precieve no time, as you say you do when you meditate.

But as I undertand the concept, i never percieve time. I percieve change, I do things, and they sometimes take a while doing. But the process of the action is what makes the meaning of the digits on my watch, not the other way around.

So I maintain my view that time, to the extent that the concept has any value at all, is merely a means of measuring change relative to other change.
And, Eorl, I don't think there is anything in Eintsteins theories that disproves that.

Well said, and I agree. Philosophical concepts, especially religious ones, can only apply to believers of concepts that's beyond the realm.

Yes, exactly: time is a way of talking about relationships of change. All is process and becoming, no static things and beings.

That's my point. It's perfectly reasonable to try to dismiss time as a frame against which all things are experienced. It certainly a good work-around for daily life. But time just isn't as simple as we'd like it to be. The problem of my twin brother being half my age merely demonstrates the phenomenon. Thinking of space/time as a flexible fabric is much closer to what "is" than the idea of a universal "now" against which all happens. As I understand it, gravity is also a product of the warping of space/time due the presence of mass. If time was a separate phenomenon, there would be no requirement to fall.

Good post Eorl--well expressed.

Thank you JL!

Time is the movement of information through consciousness. Light carries information and we observe this, take it into our own consciousness, think about it, then add our thoughts to the continuum and so 'time' passes. Light is the keynote of our universe, which is universal thought waves and as it is the keynote of the universe, it determines the thought speeds of all things and all of life. Your thought speed could be faster than mine if compared to mine, Yet on the whole we all think pretty much at the same rate, since we all observe incoming universal information at the same rate.

How do you explain about the lives of the blind?

Eorl

Space/time does not assume linear time. I do not see where our concepts of time conflict.

Actually, the "problem" of how one defines time is no real problem for me. I leave that to the physicists who are probably not really concerned with the matter in any deep philosophical sense. Their "T" (time) must be defined in some technical sense that "works" for their problems, but not in any philosophical sense--I'm guessing here, of course.
In meditation I may simply "observe" that there is only process and change, while drawing no conclusions from that observation. It is just what it is, right or wrong.

I agree; scientists are more concerned with real time as it affects their problems in solving our intrusion into the galaxies.

Eorl

Took some time to consider your reply.

But it seems my notion of time is a subjective one, in that I relate to the concept as it is experienced by humans. Your approach deals more with how mass and movement affect eachother, and in that regard the concept is more complicated. JL basically said the same thing, if I read him correctly.

But regardless of this, the point I am pushing is that the concept of space/time doesn't negate the idea of a universal "now", to use your phrase. It merely shows that within this "universal now" all things are not subject to the same pace of "timeflow". If we define the present in terms of linear time, then it becomes an undetectable nanosecond. It isn't anything, merely the border between past and future. But like I said, I do not think linear time is a very useful concept beyond organizing daily life.
So instead, I wiev the present as the only true infinity. It has no beginning nor any end. It's not a fixed value; it is merely the realm of possibilities. Within it all that can be will be, and there is nothing outside of it.

Like I said, and others said, mine is a metaphysical concept of time. Yours is scientific. I think it would be interesting to find out if your concept can contribute to mine, and vice versa. Can they merge in my mind to provide me with an even deeper understanding of this existence?

Your last sentence reflects the right spirit.

They will merge to the degree that scientists are looking further into the galaxies, and they will explain in layman terms what they find.

I think it's an exciting time to be living in; our generation has seen man on the moon and rockets to mars. We are finding more planets and galaxies that seems possible for other life forms.

That's a great reply indeed Cyracuz. Thankyou for your thoughtful consideration of my position. Indeed, I've often mentioned that I generally hold or a least discuss my own positions in order to have them challenged with the hope of either broadening, confirming or revising my own understanding.

The thing is, while I accept that science sometimes tries too hard to look too closely at the smallest component of a given situation, I think the modern tendency to dismiss scientific objectivity in favour of pure subjectivity is dangerous, (religious self delusion being the perfect example), and that science is too easily dismissed as not relevant to philosophy. I have great respect for the Dalai Lama's position...

The Dalai Lama wrote;


Personally, I find a good philosophical use of science (as a foil against self-delusion) is to assess things I assume to be true against what science has proven NOT to be true, rather than just accepting what science claims to be true as the sum total of what is. (It all fits with my tragic "exceptionist" personality, which basically means I look for holes in every argument.)

Our understanding of time is a perfect example of where our human understanding and cognition of it is completely at odds with what happens to be measurably true. Like the flat earth I guess.

There is one aspect of the Dalai Lama's quote I would like to comment on at the moment. (I'm a little pressed for time here)

If if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, I would rather say that the understanding of tose claims needed re-examining. Maybe indeed to be abandoned altogether, but while science is a matter of analysis and testing, philosophy is much more abstract. The important thing in Buddhism, for instance, should not be wether a concept is true or not, but wether or not that concept is a benefit to you. In Buddhism, and also sometimes in philosophy in general, things are more complicated than true/false.
But I agree fully that if a metaphysical concept, be it religious or philosophical, is in direct conflict with scientificly proven fact, it needs to be revised or discarded.
For me, philosophy is, to a large extent, about the metaphysical mirror image of the physical world as it is being described by science.
Science can't really tell us anything about ourselves as spiritual beings. It can only tell us what we have to work with in doing so. That is why philosophy and science shouldn't progress independantly, in my opinion.

I agree that philosophy and science must progress in tandem, but people have difficulty applying what we learn from science when it conflicts with their religious beliefs. There's something about the human psyche that seems to give higher credence to religion over science when there are conflicts; they are able to rationalize those conflicts in different ways.

Most religious people believe religion is the basis for morality while ignoring simples facts that religion has been responsible for more wars and atrocities against life.

It's a contradiction we'll have to live with, because religion is here to stay.

C.I. it MAY be true that religion is here to stay, but I feel that in the long run it will have changed in many ways for many populations. Religion should evolve, that is to say it will become more spiritual and less doctrinal. And, of course, it is the business of Science--as a theoretical practice--to evolve, never to arrive at and defend doctrines.

We have all seen some changes in the christian religion, but their primary focus has not. It's about their loving god who will save them from themselves.