View Full Version : The Counscious Defines Time
TruthSeeker
01-11-03, 06:36 PM
First of all, concider two things:
Our conscious is self-limiting
Time itself is ummeasurable
We are a conscious. A counscious defines itself by a mind, will and emotions different from other mind, will and emotions (other conscious). Time is measured by the conscious in seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years (etc), but its concept is general rather than individual. It is easier to get my point if we do some experiments...
Coincider this: It is 22:00. Before you go to bed, you read a book. The book you are reading is very boring and your teacher told you that you have to read it for tomorrow. It seems to take forever to get to the end of the book. Then, when you finish, it is 00:00 (eventhough it seemed that you have been reading for 4 hours...:bugeye: ). Then you finally go to bed. In 5 minutes you are sleeping and having dreams. Suddenly, the alarm clock goes on. It is 7:00. You think to yourself: "already!?". It seemed like 5 or 10 minutes.
Have you ever had such experience? I know I did many times. What does that mean? How does our counscious regulates how we experience time? That's exactly what I've been asking myself. Here is something that I got.
I realized that whenever I do something that needs concentration (in other words, something that need my conscious to be very involved), then time goes by really slowly. So as much consciousness I have, as much slower the time is experienced.
In the other hand, whenever I do something that doesn't require concentration, then times goes by very quickly. So as much lack of counsciousness I have, as much faster the time is experienced.
Examples for you to try for yourself:
Conscioussness-Required Actions:
Reading
Studing
Playing an instrument
Any form of art
Looking to the clock/watch (try it! time passes really slow...!)
Building something
Solving an enigma or a math equation
Thinking about this stuff... :D:p
Waiting
Consciousness-Abscent Actions:
Playing games (besides mind games...)
Getting drunk... :D
Maybe having sex...? I dunno...:confused:
Using drugs
Sleeping
Eating (may vary...)
Watching TV
The list goes on... but those are the ones comes to mind...
Most of them can vary person to person, depending on wheter you concentrate or not. There are some that are special. Like sleeping, it passes fast for everyone. And waiting is also special for some reason that I cannot comprehend yet...
Let's continue... Let's get both to the extreme.
What happens when we die? The ceasing of consciouness? Maybe. We don't have any assurance of what happens, but most of us seem to tend to believe that it is the non-existance of the conscious. Since death implies time, it might be interesting to go deeper in this subject. How does we experience time after we die? We don't. But that doesn't mean time ceased to exist, that only means that it cannot be experienced by us. Whoever is alive still experience time through their conscious. So is the existance of time defined by our conscious or our conscious is defined by time? That's strange because it is our experience of time that defines time itself. Does time exist or is it just a figment of our imagination? That is what keeps coming back to me as I think about complete abscence of counscioussness.
Besides, not everything in the universe is counscious. So how does time exist for a rock? It doesn't exist...? A rock cannot experience time, so time won't exist for a rock. But time still exist even though the rock doesn't experience! So is time dependent on a counscious to experience it, so that it can exist? I think so! Maybe time only exist because we can experience it! But is still our conscious that defines how "fast" it will pass! That's kinda weird... Let's continue...
Let's go to the other side of the spectrum. Imagine that we are SupraConscious. What do we find? As I said before, an abundance of counscioussness makes the conscious experience time in slow-motion. So what happens is we are totally conscious? If we are very conscious, time will pass very slow; if we are extremely conscious time will pass even slower, so that means that eventually time will cease to pass!!! We will be in an everlasting NOW, an everlasting present! Huuumm... everlasting present... Isn't God omnipresent (always present)? Isn't God omniscient (supraconscious, know it all)? Isn't God omnipotent (omniscience probably provides it). Then God is a SupraConscious Being. He is beyond time because He knows everything and He can do whatever He wants because He knows everything. So God must have Wisdom and know the Truth. How about Love? Maybe by Loving you become SupraConscious? Maybe by Loving you become Love ITSELF? How does God's kind of Love affect our conscioussness? Many questions about Love... but I still don't have all the answers...
Well... this is probably mind-bending for many... I guess I'm eating a doughtnout now... ;) Huuummm... doughtnout... :D:D
Anyways... I will finish it quickly (the doughtnout is calling me...:p). What does all that mean? It seems that what we experience is just what our conscious defines as "real" or "reality"...? And death? Is it SupraConsciousness or Complete lack of Consciousness? For Christians, death will be different from us and an atheist. If you know God, you will become like Him ("eternal life"). If you don't, you will cease to exist ("second death"). How wise is the Bible to say that? What is the Bible really saying? Maybe It is saying that by being SupraConscious you get eternal life? Seems so... Think about it honestly...;)
wesmorris
01-11-03, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
First of all, concider two things:
Our conscious is self-limiting
Time itself is ummeasurable
We are a conscious. A counscious defines itself by a mind, will and emotions different from other mind, will and emotions (other conscious). Time is measured by the conscious in seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years (etc), but its concept is general rather than individual. It is easier to get my point if we do some experiments...
Coincider this: It is 22:00. Before you go to bed, you read a book. The book you are reading is very boring and your teacher told you that you have to read it for tomorrow. It seems to take forever to get to the end of the book. Then, when you finish, it is 00:00 (eventhough it seemed that you have been reading for 4 hours...:bugeye: ). Then you finally go to bed. In 5 minutes you are sleeping and having dreams. Suddenly, the alarm clock goes on. It is 7:00. You think to yourself: "already!?". It seemed like 5 or 10 minutes.
Have you ever had such experience? I know I did many times. What does that mean? How does our counscious regulates how we experience time? That's exactly what I've been asking myself. Here is something that I got.
I realized that whenever I do something that needs concentration (in other words, something that need my conscious to be very involved), then time goes by really slowly. So as much consciousness I have, as much slower the time is experienced.
In the other hand, whenever I do something that doesn't require concentration, then times goes by very quickly. So as much lack of counsciousness I have, as much faster the time is experienced.
Examples for you to try for yourself:
Conscioussness-Required Actions:
Reading
Studing
Playing an instrument
Any form of art
Looking to the clock/watch (try it! time passes really slow...!)
Building something
Solving an enigma or a math equation
Thinking about this stuff... :D:p
Waiting
Consciousness-Abscent Actions:
Playing games (besides mind games...)
Getting drunk... :D
Maybe having sex...? I dunno...:confused:
Using drugs
Sleeping
Eating (may vary...)
Watching TV
The list goes on... but those are the ones comes to mind...
Most of them can vary person to person, depending on wheter you concentrate or not. There are some that are special. Like sleeping, it passes fast for everyone. And waiting is also special for some reason that I cannot comprehend yet...
Let's continue... Let's get both to the extreme.
What happens when we die? The ceasing of consciouness? Maybe. We don't have any assurance of what happens, but most of us seem to tend to believe that it is the non-existance of the conscious. Since death implies time, it might be interesting to go deeper in this subject. How does we experience time after we die? We don't. But that doesn't mean time ceased to exist, that only means that it cannot be experienced by us. Whoever is alive still experience time through their conscious. So is the existance of time defined by our conscious or our conscious is defined by time? That's strange because it is our experience of time that defines time itself. Does time exist or is it just a figment of our imagination? That is what keeps coming back to me as I think about complete abscence of counscioussness.
Besides, not everything in the universe is counscious. So how does time exist for a rock? It doesn't exist...? A rock cannot experience time, so time won't exist for a rock. But time still exist even though the rock doesn't experience! So is time dependent on a counscious to experience it, so that it can exist? I think so! Maybe time only exist because we can experience it! But is still our conscious that defines how "fast" it will pass! That's kinda weird... Let's continue...
Let's go to the other side of the spectrum. Imagine that we are SupraConscious. What do we find? As I said before, an abundance of counscioussness makes the conscious experience time in slow-motion. So what happens is we are totally conscious? If we are very conscious, time will pass very slow; if we are extremely conscious time will pass even slower, so that means that eventually time will cease to pass!!! We will be in an everlasting NOW, an everlasting present!
man, you're freaking me out!
off of your post, well, I swear I've theorized along extremely similar lines... I'm very very impressed (for what that's worth) with your reasoning here... and will take the time to retort in detail at some point.... well, actually link to the thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15374 and you'll see an amazingly similar approach to the problem.
unfortunately, you screw shit up by trying to introduce jesus reasoning. STOP THAT and you'll maybe get somewhere. are you just so overwhelmed by your tripped out brain that you have to blame it on something? you don't know anything! you have faith in assumptions... that is completely different than knowing anything. your reasoning above is very very good, but MAN... why screw it up with this (and most of what followed):
Huuumm... everlasting present... Isn't God omnipresent (always present)? Isn't God omniscient (supraconscious, know it all)?
You don't know this apparently: The relativistic effect of time dilation means that the "present" is only a local condition... it messes with my head but it's true. Further, it's a little uh "premature" to go assigning broad conclusions regarding theism from an excellent line of reasoning regarding time. You jump to conclusions prematurely, then state your hypothesis as fact... that is unreasonable.
I believe though, that we are truly onto something with this... if you learn to tone down the god crap somewhat we might actually have a very interesting conversation.
orthogonal
01-12-03, 12:32 AM
Hi Truthseeker,
Isn't God omnipresent (always present)? Isn't God omniscient (supraconscious, know it all)? Isn't God omnipotent (omniscience probably provides it).
Unless you define the word "God," then I'm afraid these questions are meaningless.
If you define God as omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, then these questions are tautological.
Best wishes,
Michael
First off, I disagree with the god concept. I don't think he exists and there is no and has been no proof that he does. There is only belief that one would exist and that is no different today than it was 5 centuries ago. (Though the gods were differnet then and every bit as real to them) Just because of belief, does not make it real either. In the Middle Ages, people believed in dragons. No true dragons have been discovered to date, unless you believe that dinosaurs fit that billing.
As for conscious, it is a self precieved measurement. Both the awareness of itself and of the passage of time. The passage of time is marked by what the consciousness focuses on. More intense focus causes time to lengthen and less focus causes it to speed up. That is the reason that watching the clock makes time pass slower and having fun causes it to seem to speed up.
TruthSeeker
01-12-03, 11:36 AM
wesmorris,
unfortunately, you screw shit up by trying to introduce jesus reasoning. STOP THAT and you'll maybe get somewhere. are you just so overwhelmed by your tripped out brain that you have to blame it on something? you don't know anything! you have faith in assumptions... that is completely different than knowing anything. your reasoning above is very very good, but MAN... why screw it up with this (and most of what followed):
You would probably be very impresed by how I got to that conclusion....
You don't know this apparently: The relativistic effect of time dilation means that the "present" is only a local condition... it messes with my head but it's true. Further, it's a little uh "premature" to go assigning broad conclusions regarding theism from an excellent line of reasoning regarding time. You jump to conclusions prematurely, then state your hypothesis as fact... that is unreasonable.
I stated the exact reason why I believe in God. You see, our conscious limits itself, so the Truth cannot be attained directly by the conscious. However, as you become supraconscious (and midle-term supraconscious..) you start to know the Truth. You have difficulty in believing in God because it is hard for you to believe that there is a supernatural invisible being. That's ok... but if you really wish to understand what I'm saying, you should quit seeing God this way, because that's not my focus here. I'm not saying how God appears to be, and I don't want to discuss that here (cause it's pointless). However, I would like to discuss the nature of God and try to find out how He is possible in the light of science. For now, think about God as a concept. I stated that he is Truth, so let's use Truth instead of God...
TruthSeeker
01-12-03, 11:42 AM
orthogonal,
Unless you define the word "God," then I'm afraid these questions are meaningless.
If you define God as omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, then these questions are tautological.
God is The Truth.
Truth=God
Read carefully in this little bit...
We will be in an everlasting NOW, an everlasting present! Huuumm... everlasting present... Isn't God omnipresent (always present)? Isn't God omniscient (supraconscious, know it all)? Isn't God omnipotent (omniscience probably provides it). Then God is a SupraConscious Being. He is beyond time because He knows everything and He can do whatever He wants because He knows everything. So God must have Wisdom and know the Truth.
And you will get how my "belief" in God is grounded in scientific analisis...
If you pay attention to the last sentence, I inderectly called God "Truth"...
I also provided the reasons why I "believe" (besides knowing it...):
He is everywhere
He is SupraCounscious
The other two provides the last one.
All this is compatible with the theory of how time is experienced when you are supracounscious. I proved it in words, theorizing it.
TruthSeeker
01-12-03, 12:06 PM
wet1,
You cannot prove there is no God. Unless you brake my reasoning, then you can prove that God doesn't exist within my reasoning. Dragons and gods were usually used to explain how nature works. That was early science, without experimentation. It was philosophy, they tryed to understand the world by thinking about it. That was the early idea. Wheter there were Greek people that worshiped those gods or not, that I don't know...
You understood my concept. Now try to understand why I put God in the end of it. Also, this is a summary...
abscence of conscious.....conscious.............supraconscious
<-----------------------------------+-------------------------------->
second death.......................life.................. ...eternal life
hell......................................Earth... ..................Heaven
orthogonal
01-12-03, 03:54 PM
Hello Truthseeker,
Read carefully in this little bit...And you will get how my "belief" in God is grounded in scientific analisis...
I read it very carefully, Truthseeker.
Please let me explain that the scientific method begins with a hypothesis that can be verified by the means of a physical experiment (not a thought experiment). The next step is to actually perform the experiment. Ideally, the experimental data allows one to either corroborate or to refute the original hypothesis. Quite often the hypothesis is modified and another experiment is performed. This iterative process can continue for some time.
Truthseeker, nothing of what you have written here follows the scientific method. What you've done is to manipulate some undefined terms until they appeared to be different. For example:
God is The Truth.
Truth=God
This simply demonstrates the Symmetric Property of Equality. It's true for any variable you might choose to replace the subject and the predicate with; If A = B, then B = A.
We will be in an everlasting NOW, an everlasting present! Huuumm... everlasting present... Isn't God omnipresent (always present)? Isn't God omniscient (supraconscious, know it all)? Isn't God omnipotent (omniscience probably provides it). Then God is a SupraConscious Being. He is beyond time because He knows everything and He can do whatever He wants because He knows everything. So God must have Wisdom and know the Truth.
If you had properly defined your terms I could critique this argument as a non sequitur. It tends towards circularity, however, as the argument never actually makes a complete circle I wouldn't be technically justified in making that criticism of it.
Truthseeker, the terms used in an argument must be explicitly defined unless they are thought to be conventionally understood. For example, since most people know what a bicycle is, I can confidently use the word "bicycle" in an argument without first needing to define the term. But when you use words such as "supraconscious," most people, myself included, haven't the slightest idea what you mean by it. I remarked in an earlier post that even though we hear the word "God" quite often, since it means something different to nearly everyone, that term must also be defined each time it's used. Philosophy, by its very nature deals with ideas only a hair's breadth removed from outright nonsense. It's critically important that we agree on clear definitions before we begin. If we fall into speaking nonsense, at least we'll all be talking the same nonsense. ;)
Once we've defined our terms we can begin the argument. Of course, our arguments themselves should ideally follow very specific rules of logic. I wonder, Truthseeker, if you might be interested in taking a course in logic at school? It's a fascinating subject. I had my first course in logic over twenty years ago, and despite my interest in the subject I feel as though I've barely scratched the surface. I make logical errors quite often, but when an error is pointed out to me at least I have the luxury of slapping my forehead and exclaiming, "Of course!" instead of trying to argue that my error should be admitted to the debate. Since you clearly enjoy constructing arguments, I think you might enjoy learning the "nut-and-bolts" of the craft. Just an idea...
Michael
wesmorris
01-12-03, 04:14 PM
ortho,
that was refreshing. :)
wes.
You should get an English person to say "doughtnout". That would be funny :)
I like your theory.
Buddha lived in the eternal now.
I like people who can say: "you can not prove this" or "cut the god crap".
I like people who can see infinite possibilties.
I like doughtnouts :)
wesmorris
01-12-03, 04:24 PM
I guess I should have clarified before.. what I really like is when people approach the problem of consciousness from the perspective of the eternal now. The details, while some have merit, are somewhate muddled. There is no point in showing specifically where the problems are, cuz Truthseeker won't admit problems with his arguments. Watch, he'll try to refute ortho's post. Stupid.
It is a problem to speak about God and consciousnes and supraconsciousness without defining the terms properly. To go further with the argument, we need clear definitions.
But I like an intuitive grasp on what he said. I don't think you'll be able to go somewhere with this theory by using logic.
You say 'cut the god crap'. Doesn't it bother you that there is such a schism in people's minds? Some go with logic and science, some go with Veda's and Buddha or Christianity.
Some get stuck in the middle.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle... :)
wesmorris
01-12-03, 05:08 PM
apparently you're talking to me?
Originally posted by A4Ever
It is a problem to speak about God and consciousnes and supraconsciousness without defining the terms properly.
Actually, yes, god is a problem... consciousness isn't but supraconsciousness is. I can somewhat infer what the two problems mean, but clear definition would make it solid. I doubt Truthseeker could define them though and then stick appropriately to the definition throughout his argument.
Originally posted by A4Ever
To go further with the argument, we need clear definitions.
It would defintately be a big help, but even if he presents them, he won't be able to adhere to his own definitions.
Originally posted by A4Ever
But I like an intuitive grasp on what he said. I don't think you'll be able to go somewhere with this theory by using logic.
Okay, now it seems that you're talking to T?
Originally posted by A4Ever
You say 'cut the god crap'.
And I mean it, it's stupid to jump to conclusions.
Originally posted by A4Ever
Doesn't it bother you that there is such a schism in people's minds?
Yes it bothers me a lot. I hate it, I try to help but it is often quite useless. When you are in the grips of the meme, it's difficult to see it, and worse, the only way out is to want out. It's a tough spot for the vitim and those trying to help him.
Originally posted by A4Ever
Some go with logic and science, some go with Veda's and Buddha or Christianity.
Indeed. I mostly stick to logic and science, but I prefer 'reason'.. it's a much broader tool.
Originally posted by A4Ever
Some get stuck in the middle.
You're on it.
Originally posted by A4Ever
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle... :)
right there with you eh? nice. glad to notice you there. cheers. :)
Okay, now it seems that you're talking to T?
No, I wasn't. I think that the theory can not develop any further with logic. You can have an intuitive grasp on it. It can feed your emotional side and for some reason I always like that.
It would be very unlikely that the theory would debunk what (other) great minds say about time in a more scientific aproach.
Yes it bothers me a lot. I hate it, I try to help but it is often quite useless. When you are in the grips of the meme, it's difficult to see it, and worse, the only way out is to want out. It's a tough spot for the vitim and those trying to help him.
But don't you think a lot has to do with point of view? Even the use of reason is a meme. The scientific method is the most practical we have, and therefore you can call it the 'best', but I can't imagine that Buddha or the Veda's, could be plain wrong.
In another thread, there was talk about how everyone sees only part of the universe, and therefore can see what he wants to see. I think that is what's happening all the time. Some giant brain should put the pieces together, without chosing one of the memes.
kmguru seems to be a man who goes in the direction of integration of pov's. He practices meditation, knows all about ancient Hindu culture, talks about Gods like they are his neighbours and still he sells software and hardware using a business strategy he probably thought of himself.
The art is to be able to switch point of view. It requires a huge amount of knowledge. There's also the danger of becoming a machine when doing so I think. People value other people for 'their' opinion. Not for huge chunks of knowledge. But how can you choose one pov if you know there are many?
Indeed. I mostly stick to logic and science, but I prefer 'reason'.. it's a much broader tool.
In what way do you use it broader?
Ain't life beautiful? A new thing to ponder about: ending influence of time by consciousness. :)
Rant, continued :)
Most people will choose a pov and stick to it no matter what. Look how Cris jumped in in the where is our mind thread, explaining how we are nothing more than our brain.
Looky, he just debunked thousands of years of eastern philosophy. He is backed up by science. One million scientists can't be wrong or something like that.
wesmorris
01-12-03, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by A4Ever
No, I wasn't. I think that the theory can not develop any further with logic. You can have an intuitive grasp on it. It can feed your emotional side and for some reason I always like that.
hmm... good point. I don't think though, that an argument as such is worth pursuing externally (yes, that depends on my pov for sure) because there can be no way to relate to it with the other humans. it's one thing to relate it and then smash it up into something else, but it's quite another to assert that it has validity to those you know (from the degree of subjectivity involved) cannot understand what you mean. if you choose to present that type of argument it can only be to see if you can smash it into pieces and rebuild it stronger... or to waste yours and everyone elses time I suppose, if that's what you're into.
Originally posted by A4Ever
It would be very unlikely that the theory would debunk what (other) great minds say about time in a more scientific aproach.
absolutely... it has to encorporate it... because it has obvious validity. I do think though, that it can EXPAND the current perspective on time. At least I entertain the thought because it interests me. I further entertain the thought that I'm on a path to be able to expand this kind of argument (though not T's specifically) such that it is VERY reasonable. I do realize that I could be full of shit though, I think that's very important.
Originally posted by A4Ever
But don't you think a lot has to do with point of view? Even the use of reason is a meme.
I don't think so because in my opinion reason encompasses intuition. In other words, my intuition (regarding a specific) is not independen of my knowledge regarding the topic. I examine that intuition via reason, but reason or "something reasonable" really only implies to me the following: a system which is consistent with itself. in other words like mathematics. mathematics is reasonable because it makes sense. if it makes sense it is reasonable, it it is reasonable, it was likely arrived at via reason. *shrug*
Originally posted by A4Ever
The scientific method is the most practical we have, and therefore you can call it the 'best', but I can't imagine that Buddha or the Veda's, could be plain wrong.
Agreed, you're right on the money in my opinion.
Originally posted by A4Ever
In another thread, there was talk about how everyone sees only part of the universe, and therefore can see what he wants to see. I think that is what's happening all the time. Some giant brain should put the pieces together, without chosing one of the memes.
what if you want to see truth?
Originally posted by A4Ever
kmguru seems to be a man who goes in the direction of integration of pov's. He practices meditation, knows all about ancient Hindu culture, talks about Gods like they are his neighbours and still he sells software and hardware using a business strategy he probably thought of himself.
yes, he seems very very sharp, as do a number of people who post on this site.
Originally posted by A4Ever
The art is to be able to switch point of view. It requires a huge amount of knowledge. There's also the danger of becoming a machine when doing so I think.
I agree, but I think there is an art to sniffing out those who are just making shit up as they go too... with no basis in anything but their own heads. I smell that in T.
Originally posted by A4Ever
People value other people for 'their' opinion. Not for huge chunks of knowledge.
That's not true, I count on a lot of people for their knowledge. I have a good sense for who has a lot and who doesn't. It's fun.
Originally posted by A4Ever
But how can you choose one pov if you know there are many?
pov is fluid by nature. it changes with the present.
Originally posted by A4Ever
In what way do you use it broader?
I use the ideas from all of my knowledge (and will assimilate yours as well if you let me) as broadly and as to the best of my ability such that it emcompasses what I suspect is truth and will probably make sense in terms of iteself and the related concepts... but I cannot control directly how my brain fetches that information. In other words, most of my thoughts come kind of like: a flow of verbage comes to my consciousness as if the result of my mind weaving it's way through a relational dabasish kind of conceptual matrix in my head. so I guess I'm just saying I use it as broadly as I can at the time within a context that's stipulated as subjective... trying to keep all that in mind all the time. :) some shit like that.
Originally posted by A4Ever
Ain't life beautiful? A new thing to ponder about: ending influence of time by consciousness. :)
yes, I do think life is incredibly beautiful. oh, and I've thought about that before, I just haven't entertained it much because for me it's a bit premature and sideways to my inclination.
TruthSeeker
01-12-03, 06:34 PM
orthogonal,
Please let me explain that the scientific method begins with a hypothesis that can be verified by the means of a physical experiment (not a thought experiment). The next step is to actually perform the experiment. Ideally, the experimental data allows one to either corroborate or to refute the original hypothesis. Quite often the hypothesis is modified and another experiment is performed. This iterative process can continue for some time.
I proved you that the conscious IS defined by time. Now, to prove you that God exists, than you would probably have to experience Him or see evidence. You have two choices:
-Become supraconscious yourself, so that you can experience God directly.
-Go and find someone that do miracles, and you will see God's evidence. If you would see the Red Sea rise and everyone passing through the dry bottom, I'm sure you would believe in God... :D:D:D
Meanwhile, I theorically proved that the existance of God is possible. However, He certainly is above time and not influenced by it. I could go into details on how Faith works and how does the Spiritual Real works in relation to space-time, but that would be to go a little off-topic... It is a very broad topic this one... :eek:
Truthseeker, nothing of what you have written here follows the scientific method. What you've done is to manipulate some undefined terms until they appeared to be different. For example:
God is defined in the Bible as Truth. There is only written thing about God is the Bible. So, let's get this definition. Do you try to define medical stuff like the nae of a bone? No. Why? Because you don't know. So, I'm the one here who seems to be more intimate and used with the Bible, so please know that my terms are grounded on the Bible's terms.
This simply demonstrates the Symmetric Property of Equality. It's true for any variable you might choose to replace the subject and the predicate with; If A = B, then B = A.
God=lies...?
That wouldn't be true. If you say that, anything in the Bible will work. The Bible gives you an equation. If you change the values in the equation, it doesn't work anymore. In the same way, if you choose any definition from the Bible, you completly screw it up. So please, stick with the definitions that we have...
Truthseeker, the terms used in an argument must be explicitly defined unless they are thought to be conventionally understood. For example, since most people know what a bicycle is, I can confidently use the word "bicycle" in an argument without first needing to define the term. But when you use words such as "supraconscious," most people, myself included, haven't the slightest idea what you mean by it. I remarked in an earlier post that even though we hear the word "God" quite often, since it means something different to nearly everyone, that term must also be defined each time it's used. Philosophy, by its very nature deals with ideas only a hair's breadth removed from outright nonsense. It's critically important that we agree on clear definitions before we begin. If we fall into speaking nonsense, at least we'll all be talking the same nonsense.
You don't know supraconscious...? Well... THAT I didn't know... :)
Ok... here it goes...
everlasting: forever, infinite time. Also beyond time, since we are dealing with the very conscept of it.
NOW: the concept which defines what is experienced in the present moment. Present as itself.
everlasting present: the two above concepts combined. A prsent moment that is experienced forever. Also beyond time. It would be like seeing a movie by each frame of it, all at the same time.
God: Supraconscious Being
Supraconscious: To be totally aware, totally conscious of everything. To always know everything.
omnipresent: Total presence defined by space-time. Be everywhere at the same time, always exist. Be beyond the reality of space-time.
omniscient: To know everything. The same as supraconscious.
omnipotent: To be able to do everything as long as you choose so.
Wisdom: The ability of knowing deeply and without fixed perspective.
Truth: What is true to everyone despite your beliefs, perceptions or realities. The reality above the conscious.
I wonder, Truthseeker, if you might be interested in taking a course in logic at school? It's a fascinating subject. I had my first course in logic over twenty years ago, and despite my interest in the subject I feel as though I've barely scratched the surface. I make logical errors quite often, but when an error is pointed out to me at least I have the luxury of slapping my forehead and exclaiming, "Of course!" instead of trying to argue that my error should be admitted to the debate. Since you clearly enjoy constructing arguments, I think you might enjoy learning the "nut-and-bolts" of the craft. Just an idea...
I don't know... how many mistakes did I make this time...?
TruthSeeker
01-12-03, 06:48 PM
A4ever,
Ain't life beautiful? A new thing to ponder about : ending influence of time by consciousness.
It IS possible...:)
counscious: For "me" it's "me", for "you" it is "you". The part of yourself that is self-aware aware about the world itself.
supraconscioussness: Being supraconscious, experience a greater awareness beyond that of one's own conscious. Transcend one's own conscioussness, defined and limited by one's own perceptions, definitions and past experiences. (back to "The Meaninglessness of Conversation and The Puzzle of Life"...!!)
My opinion on time follows:
I believe that the Universe is an infinite tapestry of dimension, full of everything possible, and at the same time, nothing at all.
Anyway, back to the topic. I think that the universe does not move or progress through time, but simply is what it is- an eternal state of stillness. Since time is proportionally related to movement (and are essentially the same thing) time is an illusion. An analogy would be a car driving down the street. When the car is moving, it seems that the world is changing around you, when in fact, it's not moving at all. It's all an illusion.
Your life is like a movie reel. Think of your entire life as an infinite number of freeze-frames, with each frame representing a different dimension. I think that each progressing instant of time is actually just one of an infinite number of parallel dimensions, slightly offset from the 'previous instant'.
We only perceive time because we are programmed to perceive the abstract concept of movement during each instant of our life.
So in reality, each instant of perception is eternally preserved in a dimension of it's own. Even more of a brain warper is the fact that we are not even self-aware, but are only programmed to believe that we are.
That ends my opinion.
TruthSeeker
01-12-03, 08:30 PM
Not different then mine at all, I guess...
It's hard to believe that I'm not the only one here that sees that time is an illusion... :eek:
Have you read my film-frame example...? I think it is somewhere around this thread...
Truthseeker,
It's hard to believe that I'm not the only one here that sees that time is an illusion...
Have you read my film-frame example...? I think it is somewhere around this thread...
I didn't see it. I just skimmed over this thread though. But I did see something you wrote that I would like to add to. This may be where our opinions differ...
Meanwhile, I theorically proved that the existance of God is possible. However, He certainly is above time and not influenced by it.
I don't necessarily disagree with this statment. But, if God exists, even he would be constrained by a higher-dimensional passage of time, while our timeline would appear as a static, unchanging system.
Or maybe you already adressed this issue.
The bible is only one book of many that are written supporting religions. How can you say this one and not the other one? No matter what reference you choose you are singling millions (no billions) as having the wrong religion. A narrow point of view in my opinion. As such it makes your pov rather limited and suspect because of it.
(and will assimilate yours as well if you let me)
That is the mark of one who will truely learn and will be educated in the truest form of the word. Unforetunately we find many hold to cherished ideas and refuse to go forward from there. To look into religion forum is to see this in action. Rare are those willing to listen, try to seperate the chaff from the kernal, and treasure the kernal for what it is.
Human experience that is learned in life affects us all. I am no different in that than the next.
Still to bring something like "supraconscious" into the conversation is simular to trying to introduce magic to a group of scientists. Everyone in the group will want to understand and take apart the workings to do so. Taking apart the workings is where the difficulty will arise. Hard to test something like this as it is not tangible. Thought experiments, while useful in gaining directions, is not proof. Rarely do those experiments hold up in reality when they can be converted to the physical world.
TruthSeeker
01-12-03, 09:31 PM
matnay,
I don't necessarily disagree with this statment. But, if God exists, even he would be constrained by a higher-dimensional passage of time, while our timeline would appear as a static, unchanging system.
How can God be subjected to His own creation? If He was in another higher dimension, He would still be subjected to it, wouldn't He. I used to think as you, but when I though better about it it seems much more reasonable not to impose limits to the creator of the universe... :eek:
TruthSeeker
01-12-03, 09:40 PM
wet1,
My point of view is not directly based on the Bible. First, I tried to get a point of view which would not limit me in my own perspective, then when I found the Bible I found out that the things I discovered without perspective are the ones that are written in the Bible. It is like if the author of the Bible weren't human (hey... He is not human... :D)...
That is the mark of one who will truely learn and will be educated in the truest form of the word. Unforetunately we find many hold to cherished ideas and refuse to go forward from there. To look into religion forum is to see this in action. Rare are those willing to listen, try to seperate the chaff from the kernal, and treasure the kernal for what it is.
I already pondered all that you did. I already passed through all this. I know what you and others are talking about. I understand and reply trying to explain what is wrong with your idea. Then you reply saying that I'm not right, and your argument is not right. I explain it as clear as I can. Doesn't work still... Really, I'm doing my best to make it clear...
If you never experienced religion, how can you judge it?
Still to bring something like "supraconscious" into the conversation is simular to trying to introduce magic to a group of scientists. Everyone in the group will want to understand and take apart the workings to do so. Taking apart the workings is where the difficulty will arise. Hard to test something like this as it is not tangible. Thought experiments, while useful in gaining directions, is not proof. Rarely do those experiments hold up in reality when they can be converted to the physical world.
Do my experiment, then try to get more aware. Do things that make your time seem more and more slow. As you do those things, ponder what would happen if the time would get so slow that it would eventually stop. What would happen with your conscioussness? Ask yourself.
Truthseeker,
How can God be subjected to His own creation? If He was in another higher dimension, He would still be subjected to it, wouldn't He. I used to think as you, but when I though better about it it seems much more reasonable not to impose limits to the creator of the universe...
I believe that the Universe is infinite, and that God(if he exists) is a finite product of it. Perhapes God created our 'localized' universe(with a lowercase "u"). My fundamental idea of infinite dimension does not stop at the God level. That's what makes it infinite. If you think that God exists outside the boundries of our local universe, that's fine. But when I refer to the Universe, I am refering to all of existance, all possibilities, god, everything.
TruthSeeker
01-12-03, 10:08 PM
And if God is everything? And if God=infinite? If God is everywhere?
Truthseeker,
And if God is everything? And if God=infinite? If God is everywhere?
If "God is everything", then what would that make Him? Nothing at all. It really doesn't make sense to say that God is everything. Are you speaking figuratively?
If "God equals infinite", then what would that make Him? Nothing at all. It really doesn't make sense to say that God is infinite. Are you speaking figuratively?
If "God is everywhere", then what would that make Him? Nothing at all. It really doesn't make sense to say that God is everywhere. Are you speaking figuratively?
TruthSeeker
01-12-03, 10:23 PM
Are you speaking figuratively?
No. Have you read my first post?
Yes, I read your first post. I don't agree with it though. I mean, I do agree with time being relative to one's state of mind. That doesn't have much to do with my idea of time though.
Anyway, i don't see what that first post has to do with what you wrote:
And if God is everything? And if God=infinite? If God is everywhere?
I don't understand these sentences. Please explain.
TruthSeeker
01-12-03, 10:50 PM
By definition, God is a supreme conscioussness, He is conscious of everything. So, if He is aware of everything, then time for Him doesn't exist. Time for Him is completly stoped. He sees it as if it were frames in a movie. He sees all of it. So He is beyond time.
Time is an illusion. Awareness defines time. Lack of awareness time passes fast. Abundance of awareness time passes slow. If you use this reasoning, to make the time stop you just need to have complete awareness (hopefully you already got this). God fills in right there. God has complete awareness, so time doesn't even exist for Him (since time is stopped, it is not a variable at all...).
Truthseeker,
I understand your reasoning, but that does not make it reasonable.
Lack of awareness time passes fast
Wrong. Time simply doesn't exist. No longer applicable. You can't apply a property(speed) to something that doesn't exist.
Abundance of awareness time passes slow.
Maybe superficially within the human mind. But how can you extend this property to the minds of higher beings?
God has complete awareness, so time doesn't even exist for Him
Awareness is dependent on function(ie. function of the brain). Function is dependent on movement(movement of the brain). Movement is dependent on time(brain must have time to think).
So how can God be aware, if the illusion of time is not in effect for him?
Claudea
01-13-03, 03:44 PM
So, in theory, by reaching a state of incredibly high concentration, we can reach a state of supraconsciousness? I can see how this would prove very difficult, because most people (at least to some degree) dislike activities that make time seem to slow down. It's why people take breaks when studying, or do things to try to keep themselves occupied when "watching the clock." hmmm, maybe it's that our brains have trouble handling intense concentration for extended periods of time.
There was discussion elsewhere of reaching a state of "enlightenment." Many people were talking about this in reference to meditation, which, in my opinion, is a form of high concentration. Do you think becoming "enlightened" could be somewhere close to reaching "supraconscious?"
:p <~ Happy Buddha Smiley. ~> :p
truthseeker,
Our conscious is self-limiting I think it is probably overdue for you to try spelling these terms correctly since they are vital to your arguments.
But your argument primarily concerns awareness and perceptions. Being alert and aware of your surroundings is the mark of someone in touch with reality. The alternate is the daydreamer and unobservant, who is indeed largely unaware of the passage of time.
Alarm clocks seem like unnecessary devices.
I realized that whenever I do something that needs concentration (in other words, something that need my conscious to be very involved), then time goes by really slowly. So as much consciousness I have, as much slower the time is experienced.
In the other hand, whenever I do something that doesn't require concentration, then times goes by very quickly. So as much lack of counsciousness I have, as much faster the time is experienced.I find the complete opposite. I think the difference between us is that I enjoy concentrating and you do not. It is not concentration or consciousness that is the issue but enjoyment.
Those who do well at college and other academic pursuits tend to enjoy studying and delving into documents and books. But my observations of you on these forums tends to indicate the opposite. Your posts reflect not what you have read or studied but what you imagine the world to be like, and probably what you think the world is like. You appear more like my statement earlier - the dreamer and the unobservant. But that is just who you are and shouldn’t be seen as criticism. Many artists and fiction authors have very similar characteristics. You just haven’t found out quite yet how to focus those abilities. Trying to use them to explain the world will very likely end in great disappointment. The understanding and discovery of reality requires significant focus and concentration as well as insights and imagination.
Time itself is unmeasurable The clocks I see from time to time seem to do a pretty good job.
The bulk of your opening post though is really just gibberish, sorry but you do need to study a bit more. Try reading more of the classical philosophers. Even millennia ago you will find that may of the concepts you are struggling with were known then. Science has certainly helped the more modern philosophers, but they still base many of their ideas on the ancients.
TruthSeeker
01-13-03, 11:30 PM
Claudea,
You KNOW how to connect things... ;)
TruthSeeker
01-13-03, 11:43 PM
matnay,
Wrong. Time simply doesn't exist. No longer applicable. You can't apply a property(speed) to something that doesn't exist.
Only because something is an illusion it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We are still subjected by time, no matter wheter it is an illusion or real.
Maybe superficially within the human mind. But how can you extend this property to the minds of higher beings?
I'm not talking about minds. Minds are limited by time...
Awareness is dependent on function(ie. function of the brain). Function is dependent on movement(movement of the brain). Movement is dependent on time(brain must have time to think).
So how can God be aware, if the illusion of time is not in effect for him?
"I am what I am"... what does that mean? I could probably even write a whole thread about the nature of God all based on this single sentence... "I am what I am" is in Hebrew "YHWH", which later created the "Jehovah"... But anyways... let's go back to subject...
"I am what I am" defines God in a very broad way. Not going into details, but one of the things that it means is abscence of boundaries. You cannot define God at all. That's why I've said many times that He cannot be explained by rational ways (aka: logic). He is beyond logic. Our words reflect our boundaries. We have to cut information into pieces of information (words). Those pieces all together may for an idea. However, God doesn't work this way. He simply is. he doesn't divide Himself in pieces of information as we do. "I am what I am" defines everything. It also defines nothingness itself, as nothing is contained in everything. He is not dependent on anything. When I say He is aware, I'm defining Him, thus making Him smaller. I'm actually conscentrating on one single aspect of Him and trying to define Him rationally. So, in this sense, we cannot say He is aware. However, since He is a supraconscious being, He cannot be defined as aware, eventhough this limits our perspective towards Him. *sight... that's mind-bending...:eek:
Well, what I basicaly said is that time doesn't affect Him...
Juliette
01-13-03, 11:50 PM
Posted by Truthseeker:
""I am what I am" defines God in a very broad way. Not going into details, but one of the things that it means is abscence of boundaries. You cannot define God at all. That's why I've said many times that He cannot be explained by rational ways (aka: logic). He is beyond logic. Our words reflect our boundaries. We have to cut information into pieces of information (words). Those pieces all together may for an idea. However, God doesn't work this way. He simply is. he doesn't divide Himself in pieces of information as we do. "I am what I am" defines everything. It also defines nothingness itself, as nothing is contained in everything. He is not dependent on anything. When I say He is aware, I'm defining Him, thus making Him smaller. I'm actually conscentrating on one single aspect of Him and trying to define Him rationally. So, in this sense, we cannot say He is aware. However, since He is a supraconscious being, He cannot be defined as aware, eventhough this limits our perspective towards Him. *sight... that's mind-bending..."
Why does the moderator allow this nonsense? God is everything and nothing and God is the birds and the flowers and the trees and the jimson weed Truthseeker is smoking? This is Unitarian Universalism meets Surrealism.
TruthSeeker
01-13-03, 11:54 PM
Cris,
Alarm clocks seem like unnecessary devices.
They are actually quite anoying...:bugeye:
I find the complete opposite. I think the difference between us is that I enjoy concentrating and you do not. It is not concentration or consciousness that is the issue but enjoyment.
Enjoyment is your perception, but it is generally defined as I stated. If you say I don't enjoy reading, for example, well, then you don't know me at all!
Those who do well at college and other academic pursuits tend to enjoy studying and delving into documents and books. But my observations of you on these forums tends to indicate the opposite. Your posts reflect not what you have read or studied but what you imagine the world to be like, and probably what you think the world is like. You appear more like my statement earlier - the dreamer and the unobservant. But that is just who you are and shouldn? be seen as criticism. Many artists and fiction authors have very similar characteristics. You just haven? found out quite yet how to focus those abilities. Trying to use them to explain the world will very likely end in great disappointment. The understanding and discovery of reality requires significant focus and concentration as well as insights and imagination.
Yeah... you judge that I don't like concentration... You judge I don't like to study... It seems that you know me better than I do... :rolleyes::o
The clocks I see from time to time seem to do a pretty good job.
Time is measurable. Time itself is unmeasurable. You measure time by breaking it into pieces, but who said time is broken into pieces? That's how you perceive it. You are a conscious that defines time by using different small frames in the brain. YOu break it inot pieces and organizes it: "this is present, this is past, this is future". But know you that the present of today is the past of tomorrow!:eek:
The bulk of your opening post though is really just gibberish, sorry but you do need to study a bit more. Try reading more of the classical philosophers. Even millennia ago you will find that may of the concepts you are struggling with were known then. Science has certainly helped the more modern philosophers, but they still base many of their ideas on the ancients.
I studied Plato and Socrates for quite a while when I was about 12 years old...:eek:
Surely, I would ask you kindly to observe that you are the only arrogant person in this whole thread. You came here and judged me by your own standarts, as if you were way better than me. Those who judge themselves and judge others comparing to themselves will certainly be the most arrogant people althout they themselves don't consciously realize it... :eek:
I hope you understand by the above paragraph that you are the only "philosopher", or "scientist" or "atheist" that called my ideas "gibberish"...:bugeye:
TruthSeeker
01-13-03, 11:59 PM
Juliette,
Define "everything" without even thinking of "nothing". Define "good" without even thinking of "bad". What is from the mind can be easily defined by the mind, but when you cross the boundaries of it, how can you define it? For the very concept of "empty" requires the concept of "full" to exist. But God...? He just IS!! :eek:
Juliette
01-14-03, 12:00 AM
Posted by Truthseeker:
"I hope you understand by the above paragraph that you are the only "philosopher", or "scientist" or "atheist" that called my ideas "gibberish"..."
Here's a Satanist calling your ideas gibberish.
"Define "everything" without even thinking of "nothing". Define "good" without even thinking of "bad". What is from the mind can be easily defined by the mind, but when you cross the boundaries of it, how can you define it? For the very concept of "empty" requires the concept of "full" to exist. But God...? He just IS!! "
God does not exist, thus He is not "just IS!!".
wesmorris
01-14-03, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Juliette
Posted by Truthseeker:
"I hope you understand by the above paragraph that you are the only "philosopher", or "scientist" or "atheist" that called my ideas "gibberish"..."
Here's a Satanist calling your ideas gibberish.
I'll see that gibberish and raise you 'annoying and childish'.
TruthSeeker
01-14-03, 12:11 AM
Satanist... I see... Soon many atheists will probably agree with you... But you have no power here kid of darkness... God and Jesus are within me. Lies never endure, but Truth stands forever... You won't draw not even one more away from Him...
wesmorris
01-14-03, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Satanist... I see... Soon many atheists will probably agree with you... But you have no power here kid of darkness... God and Jesus are within me. Lies never endure, but Truth stands forever... You won't draw not even one more away from Him...
this probably isn't funny, but it sounds like he needs to be checked into somewhere you know? should this guy be operating heavy equipment? a car? isn't that endangering the public?
Juliette
01-14-03, 12:17 AM
Posted by Truthseeker:
"Satanist... I see... Soon many atheists will probably agree with you... But you have no power here kid of darkness... God and Jesus are within me. Lies never endure, but Truth stands forever... You won't draw not even one more away from Him..."
LOL! You Christians are funny for this reason. "Kid of darkness"? I'm 17, hardly a kid.
Your fool God is a figment of your imagination and your ridiculous religion will perish. We Satanists don't worship the Devil or believe in your nonsense. We worship ourselves, we believe in the human urges that you've tried to stifle.
TruthSeeker
01-14-03, 12:37 AM
We worship ourselves
That's exactly what he wants you to do...
17... You ARE a kid...
Juliette
01-14-03, 12:42 AM
Truthseeker posted:
"That's exactly what he wants you to do..."
Who?
"17... You ARE a kid..."
And how old are you, wiseass?
Claudea
01-14-03, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Juliette
Posted by Truthseeker:
LOL! You Christians are funny for this reason. "Kid of darkness"? I'm 17, hardly a kid.
You're 17... Would you rather they call you "Teen of darkness?"
Guys....tone it down a bit, you're off topic.
Nelson, treat the newbie with respect. Juliette, welcome to Sciforums.
As for the thread, I'd love to delete crap like this, but I value freedom of speech more than my sanity.
Oh yes, and Nelson, you are truely mental.
TruthSeeker
01-14-03, 12:53 AM
Claudea,
I'm 18, and I don't call her "teen of darkness" because she is made of darkness, but because her ideas of her mind are as dark as burnt ashes... She worships herself and that is not healthy at all... We are nothing in this universe. Look at yourself. What you are? A second in this endless time, a grain of dust in this endless universe, a single breath of God's life. That's whe you are. that's what WE are. And yet, most of us worship ourselves...
Juliette
01-14-03, 12:53 AM
Posted by Claudea:
"You're 17... Would you rather they call you "Teen of darkness?""
People are such assholes about the "dark". Me, I love the night.
Posted by Xev:
"Guys....tone it down a bit, you're off topic."
Off what topic, Truthseeker's babbling about whatever the fuck? :rolleyes:
TruthSeeker
01-14-03, 12:54 AM
Xev,
What do you mean by "mental"?
Mental, Nelson, as in telling people they are evil and going to hell.
Oh well, Hell sounds fucking nice.
"Infernal flames soothe my condemned soul, as torture becomes lust
Burning flesh becomes a painful pleasure in the bowels of the abyss
Blessed by damnation, blessed by damnation
Screams of anguish turn into bliss, while skin is being scorched
The fires blazing throughout this barren land brings forth enless ecstasy
Burn, I shall burn, as Hell consumes my soul
Burn, forever burn, darkness has full control
Boiling blood and disfigured bodies are found within this place
Before Satan, I have given all to become part of his creation
Blessed by damnation, blessed by damnation"
Juliette, yes, that topic.
Claudea
01-14-03, 01:24 AM
Whoa, now i'm lost... what was the topic again?
I love the night, too... I said "teen of darkness" because she didn't like being called a "kid."
How can someone be "an asshole about the "dark?"
:confused: :bugeye: :confused: :bugeye: :confused:
Claudea
01-14-03, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Claudea,
I'm 18, and I don't call her "teen of darkness" because she is made of darkness, but because her ideas of her mind are as dark as burnt ashes... She worships herself and that is not healthy at all... We are nothing in this universe. Look at yourself. What you are? A second in this endless time, a grain of dust in this endless universe, a single breath of God's life. That's whe you are. that's what WE are. And yet, most of us worship ourselves...
Allll haiiil Claudea... You know, I actually have this as my name because it's almost my real name, Claudia, but with the "e" the last 2 syllables become "Dea" which is the feminine form of "goddess" in Latin... Your comment about worshipping one's self amuses me. ::cool:
Truthseeker,
"I am what I am" defines God in a very broad way. Not going into details, but one of the things that it means is abscence of boundaries. You cannot define God at all. That's why I've said many times that He cannot be explained by rational ways (aka: logic). He is beyond logic. Our words reflect our boundaries. We have to cut information into pieces of information (words). Those pieces all together may for an idea. However, God doesn't work this way. He simply is. he doesn't divide Himself in pieces of information as we do. "I am what I am" defines everything. It also defines nothingness itself, as nothing is contained in everything. He is not dependent on anything. When I say He is aware, I'm defining Him, thus making Him smaller. I'm actually conscentrating on one single aspect of Him and trying to define Him rationally. So, in this sense, we cannot say He is aware. However, since He is a supraconscious being, He cannot be defined as aware, eventhough this limits our perspective towards Him. *sight... that's mind-bending...
Well, what I basicaly said is that time doesn't affect Him...
I don't know what is more unbelievable- that you claim God to be everything, nothing, beyond time, beyond logic, beyond awareness....or that God would even have the slightest whim to judge or even consider that which is obviously nothing more than, well....nothing. Yet somehow the simple concept of love crosses these impossible borders of time and infinity to connect us on some meaningful level? Why should we care about God? In other words, why should we worship that which is impossible to relate to in any way? He can't even be defined, not even by Himself, yet somehow YOU know him to exist? We might as well worship the concept of infinity, or the concept of impossibility, or a big red balloon. It really makes no difference.
Anyway, I'll stick to the topic. Time.
It's time for bed.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
I think it is possible to believe something that is true without being able to prove it to be true.
I also believe it is possible to take on such a state of mind which disables you to ever know that something is true. I think that is what most scientists do, protecting their parradigm. It is possible that in order to experience God, you must first except the idea of God.
It makes conversation difficult, but it broadens the perspective.
I have no problem with the concept of a God who is everything and nothing at the same time.
I also like James R's signature.
I have no problem with the concept of a God who is everything and nothing at the same time.
I don't have a problem with it either... I also don't see the significance of it. Why label it as God?
God is undefinable and unrelateable, yet most people claim to have a "personal relationship" with Him. :bugeye: It seems like many worship the label of God but not God himself. God himself is unworshippable the way he is described on this thread.
In a way, it is impossible to talk about God, cause we can only use terms limited by our mind and limited by the language. That doesn't mean we can't experience him and try to describe that experience to others.
T,
Surely, I would ask you kindly to observe that you are the only arrogant person in this whole thread. You came here and judged me by your own standarts, as if you were way better than me. Those who judge themselves and judge others comparing to themselves will certainly be the most arrogant people althout they themselves don't consciously realize it...Yeah, I can see how it could look that way, I’ll have to try greater subtlety in the future, but you forgot to mention my condescending and hypocrisy traits as well.
I hope you understand by the above paragraph that you are the only "philosopher", or "scientist" or "atheist" that called my ideas "gibberish"...There is always someone who has to be the first to tell the truth, everyone else was just much more polite. :D
wesmorris
01-14-03, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by wesmorris
I'll see that gibberish and raise you 'annoying and childish'.
Look what happened to Truthseekers nice theory.
Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got somethin to say
but nothin comes out when they move their lips;
just a bunch of gibberish
And motherfuckers act like they forgot about Dre*
*replace with Truthseeker for this to make sense :D
orthogonal
01-14-03, 10:17 PM
A4Ever wrote:
Some go with logic and science, some go with Veda's and Buddha or Christianity.
You're simply in the wrong place, A4Ever. This is the philosophy forum. Here logical argumentation is a requirement, not an option. Discussions about Veda, Buddha, and Christianity belong in the religion forum.
Truthseeker has appeared at our pony race riding a goat. We've tried to explain that goats have no place in pony races; yet he objects:
So, I'm the one here who seems to be more intimate and used with the Bible, so please know that my terms are grounded on the Bible's terms.
In other words, since he knows more about goats he can prove to us that his goat is actually a pony:
Read carefully in this little bit...And you will get how my "belief" in God is grounded in scientific analisis...
Philosophy is rightly concerned with arguments concerning the existence of a god (or any other entity, for that matter). Philosophers argue these issues in the same way they argue any other philosophical issue; by the use of logical argumentation. We don't rely on revelation, burning bushes, or mystical dreams. Philosophy is not, however, concerned with discussions about the nature of the gods; that is the domain of theology.
Since philosophers are by their very nature, skeptical, a philosophy forum was perhaps the worst place Truthseeker might have chosen to post this thread. He's not made a scientific argument and he's not made a philosophical argument. To paraphrase the physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, "It isn't even right enough to be wrong." It's possible that Truthseeker has made an excellent theological argument, but I'm in no position to judge how his goat would run against other goats. I respectfully submit that he ought to take his goat over to the goat race and find out.
Michael
Read carefully in this little bit...And you will get how my "belief" in God is grounded in scientific analisis...
Many claimed the same when arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Another philosophical thought that never was decisively answered. (Though I question that it was philosophical in its nature.)
We don't rely on revelation, burning bushes, or mystical dreams. Philosophy is not, however, concerned with discussions about the nature of the gods; that is the domain of theology.
So Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard were not philosophers? They did nothing but declare out of the blue.
Juliette
01-15-03, 04:56 AM
Posted by A4Ever:
"So Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard were not philosophers? They did nothing but declare out of the blue."
Oh that is such total bullshit. I'm not a huge Nietzsche person, and Kierkegaard is over my head, but Schopenhauer presented arguments for his statements.
Posted by Truthseeker:
"I'm 18, and I don't call her "teen of darkness" because she is made of darkness, but because her ideas of her mind are as dark as burnt ashes... She worships herself and that is not healthy at all... We are nothing in this universe. Look at yourself. What you are? A second in this endless time, a grain of dust in this endless universe, a single breath of God's life. That's whe you are. that's what WE are. And yet, most of us worship ourselves..."
Wait a second fuckhead, you're a year older and you call me a kid? You're a fucking Christian. I've probably had more men than you've had women - hell, I've probably had more women than you have!
I worship the human, if I worship anything, because that's all I can see that's worth worshipping. Your idiotic religion helped make me into this self-lacerating, self-hating creature, and I intend to change that by learning my true worth.
A second in the endless time? Well then, I'm the only IMPORTANT second.
Fuck the Absurd.
Oh that is such total bullshit. I'm not a huge Nietzsche person, and Kierkegaard is over my head, but Schopenhauer presented arguments for his statements.
Arguments are given by everyone who tries to sell you something, be it a vacuum cleaner or a philosophy.
3 examples. You know of 1 and you call my saying bullshit?
Insulting people will get you nowhere. Maybe you'll be famous for getting edited by Xev :D
Juliette
01-15-03, 05:06 AM
A4Ever posted:
"Arguments are given by everyone who tries to sell you something, be it a vacuum cleaner or a philosophy."
Duh! Wow, you must be really smart.
"3 examples. You know of 1 and you call my saying bullshit?"
I disproved it with one. I'm not huge on Nietzsche 'cuz everything he says is just what I would say, but I know his work.
"Insulting people will get you nowhere. Maybe you'll be famous for getting edited by Xev"
Like, what, I'm supposed to be scared 'cuz the queen bitch is gonna edit my statements when some idiot comes whimpering to her? I don't change my behaviour for no one. This world never gave me shit and now its time for me to give it shit.
Duh! Wow, you must be really smart.
I meant that it is easy to find arguments for something you say. It's not the same thing as proving it.
Guess I was not smart enough to make you understand what I meant :)
I disproved it with one. I'm not huge on Nietzsche 'cuz everything he says is just what I would say, but I know his work.
You didn't disprove anything. Schopenhauer had arguments for what he said. He could not prove it.
Nietzsche declares the new and destroys the old. He gives no evidence. It is his point of view.
If everything he says is something you would say, you must have a deep knowledge of history and the human psyche. O yes, and a natural gift for poetry.
I don't change my behaviour for no one. This world never gave me shit and now its time for me to give it shit.
In order to live, we need air, water and some food. You need an additional thing: "attitude adjustment" :D :D
I disproved it with one. I'm not huge on Nietzsche 'cuz everything he says is just what I would say, but I know his work
Yes.. I felt the same way when I read his stuff..
If everything he says is something you would say, you must have a deep knowledge of history and the human psyche.
Not necessarily. Some things by him come to us by intuition. He just proved it by human psyche and history.
In order to live, we need air, water and some food. You need an additional thing: "attitude adjustment"
Attitude adjustment - AKA - Social conditioning
Oh wait.. Juliette, are you not Xev's multi? :)
Not necessarily. Some things by him come to us by intuition. He just proved it by human psyche and history.
SOME things as opposed to EVERYTHING.
Attitude adjustment - AKA - Social conditioning
It's not the same thing. When a store clerk does not give you correct change, what's your first reaction?
a) Yo DICKHEAD! Learn to count or get fucked
b) excuse me sir, you gave me back this and it has to be this.
Anyway, it's forum rules to play the ball and not the man. But you're right, it is not my duty to point it out. Gotta be more selective.
Xev's mult? That would be funny :)
Originally posted by Juliette
Fuck the Absurd.
I take offense. :bugeye:
orthogonal
01-15-03, 11:53 AM
Hello A4Ever,
So Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard were not philosophers?
Philosophy is no more the history of philosophy than psychiatry is the history of psychiatry. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, developed many of his theories while under the influence of cocaine. Of the famous French psychoanalyst, Jacques Lacan, Raymond Tallis has written in his, "The Shrink From Hell":
"The brilliant ethnologist Lucien Sebag killed himself at 32 after having been discharged abruptly from treatment—because Lacan wanted to sleep with Sebag’s teenage daughter."
Modern psychoanalysis is distinct from its historical origins. There is no doubt that Freud and Lacan were psychoanalysts, but their methods have since come under intense scrutiny. So it is with modern philosophy.
Philosophy once encompassed the study of everything. You might recall that until the later part of nineteenth century physics was still known as natural philosophy. One by one, the various fields of specialized study dropped away. What's left? Or asked in another way, "What is philosophy?" I'm afraid that question is itself a philosophical question. It's perhaps easier to say what philosophy is not. Philosophy is not poetry, it's not navel-gazing, spirituality, or mere opinions. In his book, The View From Nowhere, Thomas Nagel wrote:
"There is a persistent temptation to turn philosophy into something less difficult and more shallow than it is. It is an extremely difficult subject...I do not feel equal to the problems treated in this book. They seem to require an order of intelligence different from mine."
These last two sentences, coming as they do from the world-class philosopher, Thomas Nagel, are rather sobering. The word "philosophy" has been so abused as to have almost lost its meaning. It is unfortunate that we all too often hear politicians, CEOs and Generals alike speaking of their "philosophy," as if philosophy were a plan for action.
A contemporary professor of philosophy, Sandra LaFave, makes these distinctions about philosophy and the philosophical method:
"Logical argumentation is the hallmark of philosophy. Philosophy is characteristically dialectical; it consists of reasoned arguments for philosophical views, as well as presentation and consideration of possible opposing arguments...Philosophers are certainly interested in comparative religion and social science, but philosophy is not exactly an empirical discipline; it is more "applied logic". It analyzes the arguments in support of belief; the analysis checks for ambiguity, inconsistency, invalidity and unsoundness of argument, as well as plausibility and consistency of logical consequences."
Michael
orthogonal
01-15-03, 12:08 PM
Juliette wrote:
Like, what, I'm supposed to be scared 'cuz the queen bitch is gonna edit my statements when some idiot comes whimpering to her? I don't change my behaviour for no one. This world never gave me shit and now its time for me to give it shit. Juliette, I've kept a journal for at least the past 30 years. I carry my journal with me wherever I go: up mountains and across oceans. I'd feel lost without my journal. In my journal I record my ideas, quotes from books, and bury my embarassing attempts at poetry. My past journals line my bookcase at home. Sometimes I refer to them, but mostly they collect dust. When I die they'll be tossed in a recycling bin.
Now imagine that one day when I opened my journal I discovered some mysterious handwriting under my last entry. Imagine that this unknown entry had actually responded to my idea! Imagine that instead of simply recording my lonely ideas, this journal became a conduit for philosophical discussions. It would be exciting to write my ideas on a page, close the cover, and when I reopened the book there might be an answer, perhaps from someone half-way across the planet. Of course, what I'm describing is this philosophy forum. I still keep my private journal, but this interactive journal is vastly more enjoyable. I enter into philosophical discussions not so that I might convince someone to believe what I believe, but to refine my own ideas. It's wonderful to have A4Ever challenge my ideas. In responding to his challenge I'm forced to re-evaluate my own beliefs.
You might think of our philosophical discussions as a game of chess. My post is my move. My "opponent" thinks about my post and then responds; that's his move. What should we think of a chess player who having gotten into a tight spot stood up to scream profanities at his or her opponent? Of course, philosophical discussion is not really like a game of chess. The outcome of a chess game determines who is the better chess player. What does an outcome of a philosophical argument prove; that someone is more at home in their word than is another? Nothing any of us say here is the ultimate truth. In fact, nearly everything I write ought to have a tiny question mark follow it. Again, to quote Thomas Nagel, but this time from his book, The Last Word:
"The only way we can have any hope of advancing towards truth is to be continuously dissatisfied with our opinions, to be always on the lookout for objections, and to be prepared to change our theories whenever counter-evidence, counter-arguments, or better-supported alternatives present themselves."
Juliette, I'd like to welcome you to this group. I'm truly sorry to hear that you've had a rough life. My "life so far" at your age was pretty rotten as well. It might be of comfort to you to know that at least in my case, my awful beginnings eventually blossomed into something of a one-man Ode to Joy. I'm terrible at giving advice, but there is one quote that I've long kept close to heart. Rainer Maria Rilke in his, Letters to a Young Poet wrote:
If the world does not appear to be magical, "blame yourself; tell yourself that you are not poet enough to call forth its riches."
Best Wishes,
Michael
Orthogonal,
thanks for your posts. Your anology with your journal is one I'll keep in mind.
Philosophy is no more the history of philosophy than psychiatry is the history of psychiatry
In all the philosophy courses I had so far during my education, the focus was on history. In ethics from Aristoteles to Levinas. In fundamental philosophy from Plato to Sartre.
It is true that this is 'history of philosophy' and not actual philosophy. It is good to move the focus to further development.
The 'philosophers' of our history did not follow logic. They often declared, based on their feelings, or merely reacted against something they didn't like.
With our view on this history and the awareness of the importance of logic, we should indeed try to do better.
There is a persistent temptation to turn philosophy into something less difficult and more shallow than it is
Many people lost their sense of meaning somewhere in the collapse of organised religion. There is nothing much left to cling to. This explains the popularity of new age. It is the bricolage of bits and pieces that lie shattered around us.
'It might be true' takes the place of sound logic, but that is because many of the ideas are so appealing. Wouldn't you like to be a multi dimensional being equaling God in creative power?
Because we look for something to hold on to, and not necessarily for the truth, the standard of what people call philosophy is lowered.
You might think of our philosophical discussions as a game of chess.
I think that's the instinct of survival. We feel threatened very quickly. It's good to be aware of this.
The only way we can have any hope of advancing towards truth is to be continuously dissatisfied with our opinions
I always hope to arrive rather soon to get the thinking part over with :) I can see an 90 year old man who still has the same idea right before me.
Philosophy never ends.
Greetings,
A4Ever.
EvilPoet
01-15-03, 02:58 PM
"Time is nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once."
-Prof. John Wheeler
"Consciousness is the perception of what passes in a man’s own
mind. Can another man perceive that I am conscious of any thing,
when I perceive it not myself? No man’s knowledge here can go
beyond his experience." -John Locke
"An hour sitting with a pretty girl on a park bench passes like a
minute, but a minute sitting on a hot stove seems like an hour."
-Albert Einstein
Time and the Observer (http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/time&obs.htm)
wesmorris
01-15-03, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by A4Ever
. Wouldn't you like to be a multi dimensional being equaling God in creative power?
In a sense, who's to say we aren't? Heh, okay, but depending on how you look at it.. I'd swear there's a point.
Oh, and I've enjoyed your posts. Nice.
wesmorris
01-15-03, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by EvilPoet
Time and the Observer (http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/time&obs.htm)
your link exploded my brain! (thanks, I liked it)
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
First of all, concider two things:
Our conscious is self-limiting
Time itself is ummeasurable
Why do you think that time cannot be measured? Physics has a very precise definition of time and there are all sorts of ways to measure it.
TruthSeeker
01-15-03, 10:42 PM
Cris,
There is always someone who has to be the first to tell the truth, everyone else was just much more polite.
It is interesting to see what some people call "truth"...:bugeye:
TruthSeeker
01-15-03, 10:46 PM
Julliete,
Wait a second fuckhead, you're a year older and you call me a kid? You're a fucking Christian. I've probably had more men than you've had women - hell, I've probably had more women than you have!
I worship the human, if I worship anything, because that's all I can see that's worth worshipping. Your idiotic religion helped make me into this self-lacerating, self-hating creature, and I intend to change that by learning my true worth.
A second in the endless time? Well then, I'm the only IMPORTANT second.
Fuck the Absurd.
Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self Self...
That's ALL that you think about...
TruthSeeker
01-15-03, 10:52 PM
Orthogonal,
In other words, since he knows more about goats he can prove to us that his goat is actually a pony:
Philosophy is rightly concerned with arguments concerning the existence of a god (or any other entity, for that matter). Philosophers argue these issues in the same way they argue any other philosophical issue; by the use of logical argumentation. We don't rely on revelation, burning bushes, or mystical dreams. Philosophy is not, however, concerned with discussions about the nature of the gods; that is the domain of theology.
Since philosophers are by their very nature, skeptical, a philosophy forum was perhaps the worst place Truthseeker might have chosen to post this thread. He's not made a scientific argument and he's not made a philosophical argument. To paraphrase the physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, "It isn't even right enough to be wrong." It's possible that Truthseeker has made an excellent theological argument, but I'm in no position to judge how his goat would run against other goats. I respectfully submit that he ought to take his goat over to the goat race and find out.
Now you are being silly...
You realize that in the whole text I wrote only 3 lines about God...? And then all this discussion... why? What is really the problem? Why everyone is so scared? Sometimes I really can't understand that...
The text is about philosophy. In the end I talk about the high probability that a supraconscious exists and I used logic to prove it. Wheter you call this supraconscious God or singularity is your problem, not mine. :bugeye:
TruthSeeker
01-15-03, 10:57 PM
Nasor,
Why do you think that time cannot be measured? Physics has a very precise definition of time and there are all sorts of ways to measure it.
Time itself is unmeasurable. You can try to define time by cutting into small pieces, but to see the whole things without making it smaller...
The measurement of time is just our perception of it. It can be night here now... but I'm sure in China it is morning.
Besides that, the present of today is the past of tomorrow.
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Time itself is unmeasurable.What do you mean by this? Time can be quantified and expressed in terms of units. Is that not measuring time? The measurement of time is just our perception of it.It is true that our perception of time is not always accurate. This is why we use devices and processes to measure time that are not dependant on our perception. Like clocks.It can be night here now... but I'm sure in China it is morning.Yes, when the sun shines on one half of the earth it will be dark on the other half. I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.
wesmorris,
In a sense, who's to say we aren't? Heh, okay, but depending on how you look at it
Well, we live in four dimensions, there's little doubt about that.
Nietzsche declares the new and destroys the old. He gives no evidence. It is his point of view.
Hardly. Much of his destruction of "morality" is based on his studies of history and philology.
And kindly don't tell the moderator what to censor and what not to.
ndrs, my "multi"? And is "Justine" yours?
Hardly. Much of his destruction of "morality" is based on his studies of history and philology.
He declares concepts like the Ubermensch. It is his hope. Surely the blind powers that govern reality must be able to do better than creating just us humans.
His philosophy is an anti reaction. It is passion. He doesn't follow proper logic.
If everything he says is something you would say, you must have a deep knowledge of history and the human psyche. O yes, and a natural gift for poetry.
That's as much as he gets.
And kindly don't tell the moderator what to censor and what not to.
Insulting people will get you nowhere. Maybe you'll be famous for getting edited by Xev
If I say that maybe something could happen, is that the same as telling a moderator what to do?
ndrs, my "multi"? And is "Justine" yours?
The temptation was too great! :D
wesmorris
01-16-03, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by A4Ever
wesmorris,
Well, we live in four dimensions, there's little doubt about that.
That isn't true. There is SOME doubt about that for sure. I sincerely doubt it myself. For instance.. why can we be conscious? I believe that's indicative of another "dimension" right there... inward. Just an idea, but all the variants of string theory depend on more than just the four dimensions... so.. :)
plus, the world is (in general, unless you're explicitely captured and tortured or something) EXACTLY what you make of it. In my opinion that is a LOT of power.
I meant AT LEAST 4 dimensions. I read that there are more, but getting into that requires math skills I don't have.
If new age guessing is allowed, I also vote for a big number of dimensions, for example to contain all the possibilities.
wesmorris
01-16-03, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by A4Ever
I meant AT LEAST 4 dimensions.
Sure you did. :)
:D
Consciousness doesn't necessitate any more dimensions than the rest of the universe does.
TruthSeeker
01-16-03, 09:55 PM
Nasor,
What do you mean by this? Time can be quantified and expressed in terms of units. Is that not measuring time?
That's how we define time into our perception. The brain works this way. It slice everything into small pieces in order to be able to organize it. However, by doing so, a lot of information is actually lost or distorted.
Time itself is the time without someone perceiving it. Imagine if you wouldn't exist. How would be time then? Would time still exist? It would exist for others, but not for you. That's what I talked in this thread. Everyone perceives time in a different way, eventhough to measure time we still use the same units. As we are subjected to time, we tend to measure it.
So time for us is measurable. Time is the object, we are the subjects. But time itself is unmeasurable since there is no subject and object.
It is true that our perception of time is not always accurate. This is why we use devices and processes to measure time that are not dependant on our perception. Like clocks.
It is still our perception. If you and a chinese guy look to a clock at the same time, it is very likely that you will see different numbers in them. It is still defined by your perception opposed to mine.
Yes, when the sun shines on one half of the earth it will be dark on the other half. I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.
Again, the time perceived here will be different then the time perceived in China. Besides, the present is always changing its position in relation to the past and future, which also creates an illusion that we are always walking towards a future and away from the past. The Truth is that there is only a present, a present continuous.
It is all a matter of subject and object. If you take into account the subject and object, time can be measured (although not perfectly measured as the distances increase). If you don't take subject and object into account, than all that you have is an everlasting present.
notme2000
01-16-03, 11:12 PM
What do you mean by this? Time can be quantified and expressed in terms of units. Is that not measuring time?
Go look up the Zeno's Paradox thread to see why this is not true. What is half a second? And half of that? And half of that? So you see it can go in to infinity and there is no set unit to measure time by.
TruthSeeker
01-17-03, 12:13 AM
If time always existed:
<--------------------+----------------------------->
infinite past...present..?......infinite future?
If time was created:
<-----------------+--------------->
beginning...middle..........end
If time is an illusion and it doesn't really exist:
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
?????
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
If time always existed:
<--------------------+----------------------------->
infinite past...present..?......infinite future?
If time was created:
<-----------------+--------------->
beginning...middle..........end
If time is an illusion and it doesn't really exist:
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
?????
Time was created by death on the earth..i.e..a beginning and end.,in higher dimesions of reality there is no time
dominic
TruthSeeker
01-18-03, 03:22 PM
I know, I'm just expressing it to those that don't know...
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I know, I'm just expressing it to those that don't know...
Well done Truthseeker ..you really are a truth seeker...
TruthSeeker
01-18-03, 07:22 PM
What do you mean by that? Have your read my first post at all?
TruthSeeker
01-19-03, 08:25 PM
Xev... this thread has absolutly NOTHING to do with Eastern Philosophy!!!:bugeye::eek:
Whatever this is, it does not belong with Hume, Descartes, Hegel and Nietzsche. Watching this thread, I see little discussion and much pontification about your Daoist/Christian/New Age personal philosophy.
"Eastern Philosophy" is the closest approximation.
Carry on here. Unless you have a suggestion?
TruthSeeker
01-19-03, 08:38 PM
It's is a personal Philosophy based on Christian views (not written here)... So or it belongs to General Philosophy or maybe to Religion...
It's a personal philosophy that has more New Age/Eastern overtones than Western overtones. It is also becoming a flamefest (see your comments to Juliette) and I don't want that sort of thing in my board.
Out of my hands now anyway.
TruthSeeker
01-19-03, 08:59 PM
There is absolutly nothing of Eastern or New Age here...:bugeye:
It's actually mostly science, ideas like presentism...:bugeye:
Really... don't judge what you cannot understand...:bugeye: :rolleyes:
Take it up with Pofiry or drop it. I see nothing resembling what is termed "western philosophy", I see no substantiative debate - should I have closed your thread instead of moving it to an appropriate forum?
TruthSeeker
01-19-03, 09:08 PM
should I have closed your thread instead of moving it to an appropriate forum?
Sure supreme dictator!...err... I mean... moderator...:rolleyes:
Sure supreme dictator!...err... I mean... moderator...
"Ma'am" will work fine, Nelson. Now go wax my Alfa Romeo.
TruthSeeker
01-19-03, 09:12 PM
Not really... I will soon take over your dictatoriorship! The revolution begins NOW!:eek::p:D:rolleyes:
TruthSeeker
01-19-03, 09:13 PM
Btw... taht was a "serious" critique...
notme2000
01-20-03, 12:57 AM
Someone's gone a little power crazy....
TruthSeeker
01-20-03, 10:26 PM
It is common sense that when common people feel the power they usually start acting like that and abusing it... Just look at almost any president in this world...
notme2000
01-21-03, 12:55 AM
They say the best leader is the one who reluctantly accepts the postition cause he sees no one else worthy of the job.
Rajagopals
01-29-03, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Think about it honestly...;)
I did and the this URL is the result...
http://rajagopal.webhostme.com/is_time_real.htm
pls comment
TruthSeeker
01-29-03, 07:51 PM
Well... I'm not very "in" eastern stuff anymore... so I can't really comment on it...
Originally posted by notme2000
Go look up the Zeno's Paradox thread to see why this is not true. What is half a second? And half of that? And half of that? So you see it can go in to infinity and there is no set unit to measure time by. Go look at a basic calculus textbook to see why zeno's paradox isn't really a paradox. Zeno's paradox relies on the assumption that the sum of an infinite number of numbers must always be infinite, which is incorrect.
And yes, there is a set unit to measure time by; we currently use vibrations of cesium atoms, which are quantifiable whole numbers.
notme2000
02-03-03, 01:14 PM
Zeno's paradox relies on the assumption that the sum of an infinite number of numbers must always be infinite, which is incorrect
Ok, I know next to nothing on the subject, but how can infinity plus infinity equal a static number? the closest answer I can think of to a static number is 2. 2 infinities... Which isn't exactly static. :bugeye:
notme2000
02-03-03, 01:16 PM
And yes, there is a set unit to measure time by; we currently use vibrations of cesium atoms, which are quantifiable whole numbers.
So how long does it take for a cesium atom to vibrate, and why can't that amount of time be cut in half a-la-Zeno's Paradox?
Originally posted by notme2000
Ok, I know next to nothing on the subject, but how can infinity plus infinity equal a static number?The sum of an infinitely long set of numbers can be equal to a discrete number if the numbers being added together decrease with each addition. For example, the sum of 1 + ½ + 1/4 + 1/8…taken to infinity will equal two. This is the same thing that happens with zeno's paradox. You have to sum an infinite number of time-lengths to calculate the total time necessary to travel the distance, but the result is not infinite; it's a discrete number. They didn't have the concept of calculus limits back in zeno's time, so he can be forgiven for being mistaken, but it's no longer a paradox.So how long does it take for a cesium atom to vibrateIt takes exactly 1/9,192,631,770 seconds for a cesium atom to vibrate; this is the definition of second.
Well, actually a second is defined as exactly 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium atom, but you see what I mean.
TruthSeeker
02-03-03, 10:37 PM
The sum of an infinite sequence of numbers is defined by:
S=a/(1-r)
Where S is the sum, a is the first term of the series and r is the ratio. However, this is an approximation. The sum of an infinite series will never end. What we are saying here is that once the numbers get too small, they are not important anymore (what is pretty wrong to think, actually). For example:
1)If we have an infinite geometric sequence which first term is 4 and ratio is 1/2 then...
series:
4+2+1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16....
Theorically, the sum is 8.
In practice will NEVER get to 8. But since the numbers get too small, we make an approximation. But that is not really right. In the other way around is even more clear.
2)Try that:
a=2 r=2
2+4+8+16+...
Again, it will never end, there will never be a last number added. So in practice, Zeno's paradox is right.
What we are saying here is that once the numbers get too small, they are not important anymore (what is pretty wrong to think, actually).No. The limit of an infinite sum is not an approximation; it is an actual value. The summation of 1+1/2+1/4...will actually be 2 if extended to infinity. Note that it will only actually be 2 (rather than simply very close to 2) if the sum is extended to infinity. It's true that if you extended the sum to a discrete but very large amount that it would not actually equal 2, but at infinity the difference between 2 and the value of the summation will be 1/infinity, which is zero.
TruthSeeker
02-04-03, 12:08 AM
Nasor,
No. The limit of an infinite sum is not an approximation; it is an actual value. The summation of 1+1/2+1/4...will actually be 2 if extended to infinity. Note that it will only actually be 2 (rather than simply very close to 2) if the sum is extended to infinity. It's true that if you extended the sum to a discrete but very large amount that it would not actually equal 2, but at infinity the difference between 2 and the value of the summation will be 1/infinity, which is zero.
I agree qith that but there will still be infinite numbers between 1 and 2. Besides, the highlighted part is what you should pay more attention, which is THE evidence of Zeno's paradox. There are infinite numbers between all natural numbers. Actually, there are infinite numbers between all numbers. That is the focus of Zeno's paradox. See again the series:
1)If we have an infinite geometric sequence which first term is 4 and ratio is 1/2 then... series:
4+2+1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16....
Theorically, the sum is 8.
If you continue the series, it will never end. There will always be a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000...
1)If we have an infinite geometric sequence which first term is 4 and ratio is 1/2 then... series:
4+2+1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16....
Theorically, the sum is 8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you continue the series, it will never end. There will always be a 0. 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000...
It'll get really really small... but it won't be zero (except for 1/infinity)
Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I agree qith that but there will still be infinite numbers between 1 and 2. Besides, the highlighted part is what you should pay more attention, which is THE evidence of Zeno's paradox. There are infinite numbers between all natural numbers. Actually, there are infinite numbers between all numbers. That is the focus of Zeno's paradox. [/B]The focus of zeno's paradox is the fact that there are an infinite number of discrete distances between any two points and traversing each discrete distance will require a discrete amount of time. The total amount of time necessary to travel between the points is the sum of this infinite set of discrete distances. Zeno assumed that the sum of an infinite set of discrete numbers must be infinite; he was wrong.
TruthSeeker
02-04-03, 07:46 PM
Ok... first of all, why did we started this discussion for Zeno's paradox? Was that something about time?
Someone said zeno's paradox proved that time wasn't quantifiable. I didn't really understand what his point was, and since zeno's paradox has been solved for hundreds of years (it's a classic problem in introductory calculus classes) I figured it would be simpler to just point out that zeno's paradox is faulty rather than trying to dispute whatever convoluted logic had lead him to believe it made time unquantifiable.
TruthSeeker
02-05-03, 08:41 PM
Maybe try to see time using zeno's paradox...?:bugeye: I don't know what you and notme were exactly talking about and I can't say anything in this sense, but I can prove that there is a paradox related to time.
Time itself must have had a beginning, or there would be no "present". If time never "began", then what we have is infinite time in the past, and this infinite time in the "past" cannot support time in the "present". To see that in an easier way, simply change your perspective. Imagine that you are living IN the infinite time in the past. So where the "present" is, you say that is in the "infinite future". When will this future arrive? When will the "infinite future" become "present"? Never! Because for infinite measures there is no end. So time must have had a beginning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an earlier post:
If time always existed:
<--------------------+----------------------------->
infinite past...present..?......infinite future?
If time was created:
<-----------------+--------------->
beginning...middle..........end
If time is an illusion and it doesn't really exist
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since time had a beginning, something must have begun time. Then we have all those theories that explains nothing. Even if one of them are proven true, then we will need another one in order to know what