TIME, what is it.

[peter]

9 hours ago, bobb said:

Einstein said something similar that everything has its own time that is very slightly different from everything else including us, which to me is a bit of a puzzle as i would have thought that things would slip out of existence every now and then, for example if one was to look at a rock or anything for that matter I would have thought it would fade out of sync and disapear, as yet I have not witnessed this effect, but it is there.

Interesting you should think that , according to latest theory sub atomic particles pop in and out of existence from the quantum field vacuum at a  high frequency rate ,if this is in fact true ,since atoms are made up of subatomic particles and all matter is made up of atoms including us it stands to reason that we also are moving in and out of existence also.

This leads to a few questions for me anyway

1 is the frequency the same for all matter ( I suspect it is since everything is made from the same building blocks)

2 is the frequency universally in phase or does matter slip in and out of existence randomly

3 Does this mean the entire universe and everything in it is being destroyed and re built many many times a second

4 with regards to time ,if indeed time needs matter to exist as some believe, does that mean time is constantly stopping and starting

5 who or what are we  and what are we doing when we are part of the vacuum and don't actually exist in this physical plane

6 Maybe  every time when we re appear into this existence we suffer very subtle changes if this is happening many times a second this very fact could be why we actually age

7 with regards to movement are we actually moving at all if we wish to travel across the room what is actually happening is we are constantly  disappearing and reappearing in a different point in space and time to give the illusion we are actually moving. You can keep going but you get the idea, interesting isn't it

Edited January 14, 2022 by peter

[bobb]

12 minutes ago, peter said:

3 Does this mean the entire universe and everything in it is being destroyed and re built many many times a second

 

A kind of interaction between the electron and the positron that move in opposite directions of time, when they do interact then that would be the basis for what we perceive as the here and now, perhaps.

 

need more thinking time on the other points.

[peter]

1 minute ago, bobb said:

 

A kind of interaction between the electron and the positron that move in opposite directions of time, when they do interact then that would be the basis for what we perceive as the here and now, perhaps.

 

need more thinking time on the other points.

Just because these sub atomic particles are opposite in polarity (charge ) do they actually travel in different directions with regards to time ( forward and back)

According to theory there should be the same amount of electrons and positrons ( mater /anti matter) at the inspection of the universe however we don't see this  which leads me to suspect that either matter and antimatter were indeed produced in the same proportions but  somehow antimatter was destroyed or  the big bang is a crock of shit

Just a thought

[Guest]

lol

 

First there was only ....... potential.

Nothing more, no space no time no gods no thought ....... nothing but potential.

 

What that 'potential' was and where it came from .... is above my pay grade.

 

Then there was (level 2) ....... a thought.

This 'thought ' was ALL that could be ....... in all time which could be (a total book written of all which had potential) ....... but there was NO time at this point (actually there was NO point, as a point requires Time)

Consider it as a written book ....... but a book that has never been read (at this non point) it was just all that could be ....... IF read.

 

For the 'Book' to be read ....... Time was required.

So the 'Book' was fragmented. 

That is Time.

It is being read .... now as it has been before (over and over).

 

The question should not be "Time, what is it" ....... It should be "What fragmented the Book"

[peter]

45 minutes ago, ink said:

(actually there was NO point, as a point requires Time)

The old chicken and the egg argument

Would it be correct to assume that if a point requires time ,time also requires a point

 

The question should not be "Time, what is it" ....... It should be "What fragmented the Book"

That's is if the book actually exists and is in bits

 

LOL

Edited January 14, 2022 by peter

[RobSS]

50 minutes ago, ink said:

The question should not be "Time, what is it" ....... It should be "What fragmented the Book"

 

 

The fragmentation was caused by the Fall and the over development of the intellect.

 

"The brain may be regarded as a kind of parasite of the organism, a pensioner, as it were, who dwells with the body." - Arthur Schopenhauer

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by RobSS

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, peter said:

that if a point requires time ,time also requires a point

 

a point requires part of the fragmented potential to be ....... the fragmented potential ....... just is without time

 

a book don't need a reader ....... but to be involved in the story, a reader must interact with the 'book'

[peter]

19 minutes ago, ink said:

but to be involved in the story, a reader must interact with the 'book'

Therefore all matter must interact with the book simply by it's existence, and if all matter is conscious to some degree ,that then brings freedom of choice into the equation

[peter]

29 minutes ago, RobSS said:

The fragmentation was caused by the Fall and the over development of the intellect

If you are talking about the fall of man I'm afraid that matter has been around long before man came on the scene

Not being narky but why is man so bloody important to everything ,if everyone dropped dead tomorrow ,who would give a rats ,all the animals would give a sigh of relief ,man is only important in his own mind and that's it, in my estimation anyway

Edited January 14, 2022 by peter

[RobSS]

Just now, peter said:

If you are talking about the fall of man I'm afraid that matter has been around long before man came on the scene

 

I was referring to the question, "what fragmented the book".

 

[peter]

9 minutes ago, RobSS said:

 

I was referring to the question, "what fragmented the book".

 

But INK said

For the 'Book' to be read ....... Time was required.

So the 'Book' was fragmented. 

That is Time.

 

But for matter to exist time is required and matter has been around longer than man so the book must have been fragmented a lot earlier

[bobb]

1 hour ago, peter said:

What fragmented the Book

 

Ohh that's easy, when Moses came down from the mount he dropped it as it was a bit heavy on account it was made out of rock and it smashed.

[RobSS]

1 minute ago, peter said:

But INK said

For the 'Book' to be read ....... Time was required.

So the 'Book' was fragmented. 

That is Time.

 

But for matter to exist time is required and matter has been around longer than man so the book must have been fragmented a lot earlier

 

INK did say that, but if time isn't conscious, how can time read a book? The only thing that can read a book is a brain that has consciousness, but with the over-development of the intellect, the Fall occurred and reality began to appear fragmented, which is why I quoted Schopenhauer:

 

"The brain may be regarded as a kind of parasite of the organism, a pensioner, as it were, who dwells with the body."

 

 

[bobb]

2 hours ago, ink said:

So the 'Book' was fragmented. 

That is Time

 

No they are called pages, duh, but if you read a scroll, well, now we are talking, no?

[Zusies]

On 12/23/2021 at 4:10 PM, bobb said:

If time is static why do we move then, what's pushing us along, just energy, so why is it moving?

Within my understanding made very simply, time is space expanding in to matter. 

If the Universe was static or motionless, there would be no space to move inside, no dimensions of the value contained within that space, and no time take to perform either said action. 

Time is the concept of the two points of a tunnel and the value between them.  

[peter]

2 hours ago, RobSS said:

NK did say that, but if time isn't conscious, how can time read a book?

He didn't say time reads the book he said time is required to be able to read the book and if every thing is conscious that negates the necessity of man

[RobSS]

17 minutes ago, peter said:

He didn't say time reads the book he said time is required to be able to read the book and if every thing is conscious that negates the necessity of man

 

Time is just a concept of the brain. It's an illusion. Without the brain, there is no concept of time and matter is just energy anyway, which again is why I quoted Schopenhauer:

 

"The brain may be regarded as a kind of parasite of the organism, a pensioner, as it were, who dwells with the body."

 

 

 

[peter]

32 minutes ago, RobSS said:

Time is just a concept of the brain. It's an illusion. Without the brain, there is no concept of time and matter is just energy anyway, which again is why I quoted Schopenhauer

OK animals were around long before man and they had a brain  therefore man is not necessary for time to exist.

Please don't tell me animals can't read

[RobSS]

Just now, peter said:

OK animals were around long before man and they had a brain  therefore man is not necessary for time to exist.

Please don't tell me animals can't read

 

Animals still have a brain. It's the brain that creates the illusion of time and matter.

 

[peter]

Just now, RobSS said:

Animals still have a brain. It's the brain that creates the illusion of time and matter.

Right, animals do have a brain and according to you the brain creates the illusion of time and matter. Since  animals have been around much longer than man the fragmentation must have occurred much earlier than mans arrival to allow the animals to exist ,therefore your original premise that the fragmentation was caused by the fall of man by logical deduction has to be incorrect

[RobSS]

1 minute ago, peter said:

Right, animals do have a brain and according to you the brain creates the illusion of time and matter. Since  animals have been around much longer than man the fragmentation must have occurred much earlier than mans arrival to allow the animals to exist ,therefore your original premise that the fragmentation was caused by the fall of man by logical deduction has to be incorrect

 

But do animals actually perceive time like we do? They don't measure it like we do. They don't say it's 8pm and in 2 hours I'd do this or that. If something isn't measured then there's only a state of just being in the moment, which is what can give animals a lot of their charm.

 

It's only the overdeveloped intellect that makes time so significant. The more the intellect is overcome, the less time matters.

 

[peter]

1 hour ago, RobSS said:

But do animals actually perceive time like we do? They don't measure it like we do. They don't say it's 8pm and in 2 hours I'd do this or that. If something isn't measured then there's only a state of just being in the moment, which is what can give animals a lot of their charm.

 

It's only the overdeveloped intellect that makes time so significant. The more the intellect is overcome, the less time matters.

That has nothing to do with what Ink was saying, whether they perceive time differently or not is a mute point, how ever they perceive it, time still exists

Edited January 15, 2022 by peter

[peter]

5 hours ago, bobb said:

 

Ohh that's easy, when Moses came down from the mount he dropped it as it was a bit heavy on account it was made out of rock and it smashed.

I think you are talking about Mel Brooks and not Mosses

[RobSS]

1 minute ago, peter said:

That has nothing to do with what Ink was saying, whether they perceive time differently or not is a mute point, how ever they perceive it, time still exists

 

Time is an illusion created by the brain.

 

[peter]

56 minutes ago, RobSS said:

Time is an illusion created by the brain.

If indeed it is, so what, the premise of your assertion was the fragmentation of the book was caused by the fall of man, which by your own statements is obviously incorrect with regards to Ink's opinions about time and the creation there of. Do I agree with his opinion ,no I don't ,however that is not relevant to this discussion.

Given Ink's original assumption I can see with a few subtle changes in terminology his opinion as to the creation of time  would move some what closer to mine ,but not by much mind you  

Edited January 15, 2022 by peter