Crunchy Cat: Not infinitely small. If you measure it, it is, by definition, not infinite. Wesmorris: No. This was not an argument from authority, but simply pointing out that if someone can live "in the now" - as they claim to be able to do - then part of your argument, at the very least, is invalidated. And I can't believe I made the typo of "rearding" instead of "rewarding". But anyway...back to the reply. Since the rest of my post - which you responded to and I am about to respond to your replies - deals with the rest of this reply, we'll deal with it. This is true. The "now", being so fleeting, cannot contain a whole thought within it. A thought, like all other things, must occupy a massive amount of these "infinitely small nows", in order to conceive of a thought. But certainly one does not know what one knew at the beginning of the thought as compared to the end, as the end of the thought is when the knowledge-process has been completed. It is akin to when one has finished an equation. Well, for all intents and purposes, the true classification of the now - as an infinitely small duration of time - is not really useful. The "now" on a far more relative level, would refer to the instant - really about 10 milleseconds or so - that something is perceived. But really, most knowledge is not simply contained in one thought, but the connection of many thoughts, that come to to a single realization, so ti includes the past to even a greater extent. Well, let me ask you this: It takes more than one second to learn a language, yes? Does not one still know the language even if it can take years to learn it? In what sense? Logic allows us to grasp, definitively, truth. And tell me this: Is my reply post popping up for you? Because I am looking through this archive, and can't find mine anymore. I think the website burped again, what about you?
Actually James, I cross posted this because it seemed relevant in both threads. Actually it seems more relevant here than in onefinity's thread. I was in that thread thinking it was this conversation and responded as such. Kind of dumb of me. *shrug* It happens. I'll reply more later regarding the meat of the bizness above.
I was talking with some sixth graders about this two days ago. I said, "you cannot prove that the future exists, or the past." They of course argued with this. One student said, "Now. Now. Now...See, I am showing the future as it arrives." I replied that he was only stating the now, not showing that the future exists. One student said that we can prove that "past" exists by videotaping something and watching it later. I replied that this only shows that we are looking at something encoded on tape (or disk, as the case may be). It does not in and of itself show that there is a thing called "the past." Of course, it could also be said that the present cannot be shown, either, since uttering "now" immediately goes away except for an echo in our mind of the idea/sound "now," which itself pretty immediately goes away. I think that a viable hypothesis is that the only present is change. After all, the root of the word "moment" is "movement." It ties into the notion that I've stated elsewhere, that we are an eternal pattern that yearns to connect, in the course of which it creates form. Forms, in the case of notions of time, are "past" (events, dates, etc.), "present" - the immediate frame of experiences that we act upon, like, I just got home and I'm getting ready for bed, and that being within a reasonable range of experience, I arbitrarily call "now." (Of course, "now" can be stretched out to a billion years, or compressed to an attosecond). Future is also forms, i.e., objects. Objects of imagination, vision, anticipation, prediction, planning. I suspect that "ontologically," there is only a single moment and all is enfolded within it in the form of pattern. We, being pattern seeking pattern, cause form to manifest and we thus live in the map that requires us to lay out a "timeline," complete with memories and history (past), future (goals, visions, anticipations); those things we can SEE; the present is pattern, and thus we cannot see it, for it is us. The eye can see itself in a mirror, but it cannot see itself seeing.
On a linguistic note: As Indoeuropean, our common ancestor, first evolved, it didn't have tenses as we know them nowadays. They only distinguished between what is already finished, and what is still happening; in grammar, this is called verb mood. English doens't have an exact equivalent of this structure anymore, but to illustrate the language phenomenon, the closest is the pair of the simple and the continuous form: I did vs. I am doing I wrote vs. I am writing I ate vs. I am eating The understanding of time used to be strongly integrated into verbs; the "now" was understood in terms of what is currently happening, as expressd by the verb. Yet nowadays, as the language progressed, we have an understanding of time that seems to be very analytical, disattached from our activity-based experience of time. This certainly explains why the "now" seems so abstract and elusive.
Just as a matter of interest and no doubt a target for criticism, I thought I'd post Albert Einsteins view on the Now that lead to his postulates about light [energy]and mass. <img src=http://www.paygency.com/light%20cones.jpg> The upper cone is indicative of the future. The lower cone is indicative of the Past. The intersection of the two cones is the present or NOW. [ if you want to do some research Google "Light cones"] It demonstrates that a light event always occurs at this intersection and always is zero in duration [ or infinitely small duration - depending on which definition you prefer to use] This means that if you can see it it must be happening at this moment. so no matter what you see and when you see it it is always now because that is when the light event occurs. So regardless of when you look or where you look you will always see the now and nothing else. What makes this somewhat of a paradox is that what you are looking at actualy is infinitely small or zero in duration. So the now is effectively not able to be seen but is seen. we do see the constantly changing infinitely small duration, in fact that is all we see. this also seems to suggest that the rate of change universally is occuring at the speed of light [ c ]
very interesting QQ....which means we ARE seeing hearing feeling now....! thing is though, maybe we lag behind due to clumsy thinking which has been indoctrinated by current paradigm......for example, seeing now - usually ordinarily- and seeing now psychdelicized are two really dramtically different things.....The moment, the now, when psychdelicized seems to be organically living and not tick tock-now like many of us are led thru the nose to believe. clock times seems absurd. Also, i heard a while back on a Nature programme about pigeons some information which really blew me away. you know when we waatch films/movies and we see constantly moving motion when really it is stills moving very swifftly?...well apparently according to this programme, pigeons see OUR movement like stills, and would see the movie in stills....!! ifso, what would this say for the now of a pigeon in comparison with the now of a human-----a human who is seeing 'ordinarily' i mean?
The 'a-temporal Now' of the Planck 'moment' is beyond the 'temporal'. It is beyond thought, beyond experience, beyond perception, beyond space/time/matter/energy, which all are predicated within/upon temporal parameters. So.. We re-define 'now', we add just a bit of dimensionality, a 'bit' of temporality, (to that which contain neither quality) so that we may discuss this. Unfortunately, by altering 'Reality' to fit into a the tiny paradigm of our discussion, we create our own dillemnas and paradoxes within the subject. The 'paradoxes are not 'real' as we have deliberately distorted 'Reality' for reasons of thoughtful discussion. This is similar to wrapping the Invisible Man in bandages so that he may be 'seen', and then examining the bandages in order to determine the nature if the Invisible Man within. (This is an applicable hypothesis across the scientific board, by the way.) As 'temporality' is necessary for our 'existence' here, were we truly 'In the Moment', there could be no 'time' for us to exist as individual, material entities. There could BE no discussion as there could be no 'dreaMatrix'; no us, no universe (temporally predicated again..), no-THING! So we 'stretch' the 'a-temporal', in our conceptualizations, to provide fodder for discussion', for 'room to live'! The 'In the Moment' that the Sages speak of is not the immediate experience of our lives sans 'thought' which 'binds' one to illusions of the 'past' and 'future', very lost in 'illusion/dreaMatrix', but points to Ultimate Reality/Truth (at least as far as they have 'found') beyond 'illusion', beyond temporality, and hence the illusions of 'life' and 'death'. To be truly in the Now would mean a complete disintegration/dissipation/absorption of the Duality of 'self' into the Timeless nonDual One Self. So we talk about the conceptual, as opposed to the 'actual', 'now' because there can be no 'us' to talk about that 'NOW' of which temporal words and thoughts are inappropriate and inconsequential, completely nonexistent in the timeless 'Now'! Note, please, that I did not say the 'Eternal' NOW, as we cannot conceive of an 'eternal/infinite' with a temporally limited mind/brain/thoughts. Understanding, somewhat (metaphorically, allegorically, poetically, etc...) the 'quality' of 'timelessness' would certainly be a monumental (in your 'life') 'mental/experiential' transcendental coup! I hope that I have made some sense. It is difficult, to say the least, speaking of some'thing' which is not a 'thing' and words are inadequate tools to describe that which has no description... Thank you for your time... *__-
Yes, it seems that birds see "faster" than we. Watch pigeons when they pick crumbs on the ground. If we'd be picking up things so fast, we couldn't really tell what it is we are picking up. But birds either eat a lot of gravel, or they can see far "faster" than we.
An odd thing to say -- as if time *belonged* to a person. What is it that we give, when we have "spent some time" for someone or with someone?
Hello Water, nice to meet you. Perhaps you neglected to appreciate the 'meat' of my post. Had you, you would have realized that my phrase, "Thank you for your time" was completely 'tongue-in-cheek'! Not 'odd' at all. Do you think that there is a little 't-i-c' emoticon? Would that have helped? Sorry for the confusion. What we give, when we 'spend time' with someone, is a gift of love, potentially. We could be 'vampirizing' the other person for our own sick agenda, or some other reason, but to compassionately and lovingly (whatever that means) allow someone else to occupy the limelight of your life for a moment is the greatest gift that a person can give, in my opinion of course. We willingly 'give' a piece of our valuable lives, our oh-so-limited 'time' here, a true gift! Think so? On second thought, 'time' could well belong to us, in a 'proprietary' way. "My time is valuable"; "My time is short", 'your time is valuable to you', etc... Perhaps 'time' can be so subjective as to be completely personal? But, this isn't the thread for that discussion... That is, perhaps, why a gift of YOUR time is the most valuable gift? The greatest commodity in a person's life? When it 'runs out'....
Don't forget yourself, the dream is now, the past is just memories, data in brain, can not return, can not turn the time. All that can be is now, and all that can be you, there's nothing for what to wait, there's no code to say, no passcode to heaven, no ticket to hell, smile!, shake off the sweat, this is a good day to die.
wesmorris: Yes, I responded somewhat backwardsly. Didn't see that the other thread was all linked with that. Onefinity: Whilst one may not be able to give someone the past or future, you postulate that movement is the root of all things, which itself, implies time. Movement can only exist in time. water: Very interesting post. Very interesting. Quantum Quack: Doesn't, actually, Einstein's light cones refer more towards the capacity to judge how long ago a conical projection of light was first emitted at one point?
Hi Nameless. I just wanted to ***expose*** that phrase more. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So at what moment in time does the light event occur with in the eye? Quote: The Light Cone represents the idea that "the direction of the light-flash does not depend on the motion of the source---but just on the event at which the light-flash is emitted." In addition, by the Einstein Principle of Relativity, all observers, regardless of their motions, must (because of Maxwell's Laws) measure the speed of light to be the same constant, in all directions. That is to say, "all observers will universally agree on the Light Cones at each event." This means that each observer drawing a spacetime diagram in which he is at rest must have the worldlines of light-flashes at the same angle of 45 degrees from his worldline (his time axis), and 45 degrees from his plane of simultaneity (his space axes)." C/o http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html To me : This clearly states that each light event will be agreed to by all observers to occur at the same moment. So when a light ray enters the eye and is reflected the moment of reflection is a light event that every observer will agree occurs at the same moment. So the Now for all observers is exactly the same NOW. Further I would contend that for Special Relativity to be valid this must be the case.
... sheerly intuitive. All along as I have follwed this thread, this thought was with me: "Reality is what is now; now is the only reality". That which was a second *ago*, which is *away* from me now -- that is not real anymore. I'm not as fine with words as you are ... But I have more or less made my point in my first post in this thread, and to continue -- our assumptions and preconceptions shape our reality/now, and make it into a non-reality/non-now. The dreaMatrix as you called it. My native language has the category of the verb mood similarly as Indoeuropean, and my thinking about time is conditioned by that; for me, the perception of time is inherently connected with activity. So when I give someone "my time", I mean that I "give" them whatever I have been doing in that chronologically measurable unit. Now, how much has my activity been shaped by my assumptions and preconceptions -- this is the cruxy issue. (I am someone else in English.)
I understand what you are saying. For a second language, your English is excellent! A very difficult language indeed! Richard Feynman once said, "The laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist all at once, in the whole tapestry... The four dimensional space-time manifold displays all 'eternity' at once!" "Blend the immediate past with the anticipation of the soon to be, not some infintesimal point-like instant forever fleeing out of reach, is our 'now'" -Genius; The Life and Times of Richard Feynman I cannot tell how frivolously that this was spoken, but perhaps you don't know how true that statement really is. People display their ignorance and say things like, "Oh, thats JUST semantics!", but 'language' is how we 'define' and thus 'create' our 'reality'! An 'alternative' language 'creates' an alternate 'reality'. But, thats another thread I guess.. *__-
Quantum Quack: This is certainly true, due to the constant speed of C. Ah, but what about nows where no light is reflected?
