A compilation of The Good Mans thoughts: Time

John_Farson

Hi, I have some different ideas that I feel belong in this particular forum.
Instead of making a new topic for each separate idea, I decided it might be easiar on everyone if I just posted them all in the same thread. This way if/when my ideas aren't appreciated by someone then they don't have to be annoyed by all my posts spamming the forum. If someone wants to discuss my philosophical ideas then they know where to find them.



Ill start this thread with my view on time.

TIME

Time as we deal with it in society is relative. Things like clocks don't keep track of how many events have happened. Ie. In the 10minutes it takes someone to brush their teeth in Kansas. Someone else on a spaceship could have been born, become an adult,raised a family and had countless experiences.

Epistomoligacly time is linked to the individual. If said person has 3 precepts then I would view that as 3 units of time to that person. Time is based on change of the individual. If while you were reading the last sentence 100million generations came and went, time to you was only the amount of precepts it took to read the sentence.

Kerrie

Actually, we prefer if you did start a separate thread for each idea and not compile it into one thread.

Canute

You may like this.

"If time really existed, we would be able to perceive it independent of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations. It would exist on its own, and we would be able to perceive it. The fact is, however, that time can exist only in dependence upon there being something to which we can relate the notion of time. For example: if nothing had ceased, we could have no notion of the past; if there were nothing here, we could have no notion of the present; and if we did not anticipate anything happening, we could have no notion of the future. Since time can only exist in dependence upon these things, it cannot truly exist."

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso
The Sun of Wisdom
(Commentary on Nargaruna's 'Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way')

If you check out the thread on Gregg Rosenberg's 'A Place for Consciousness' you'll see this discussed in terms of what he calls 'bare differences'.

JoeError

So, we suggest that time is based on an individuals perception of time. I agree, but can we say that even though time is perceptually changed is there not still a constant? Myself, an ant and a giant all travel 100 meters. No matter what, we all went 100 meters, but the ant traveled further than I, and the giant traveled less. Unless I'm missing something (probably), if I am though I'm all ears... or I guess eyes.

John_Farson

Kerrie thats interesting, what would be your reasoning behind this statement?

On me personally its a lot easiar to manage just one thread. As I dont have to worry about tons of email reminders, will only have to keep track of one thread and I am able to inter-weave topics into each other. These topics will all be related and come from the same view point and thus make things easiar.

Imagine if you will a religious forum and inside this religious forum people can make threads on/about religion. Now if a particular Muslim person was to start posting about all his religious ideas he could potentially post in 1000s of different threads. Or he could post in 1 thread about his ideas. Now someone else who is Muslim and shares his view-point knows where to go when they want to discuss Islamic ideas. Consquently someone who isnt Muslim but wants to read up on a Muslims point of view knows where to go. Imagine this being a religious forum and a Muslim making a thread called: My Ideas On Religion. If I didnt feel that my ideas came from a distinct Philisophical category then I wouldnt just put them in 1 Philisophical thread.

And again its just much easiar on me to manage as well as easiar for me to inter-weave my views.

Kerrie

because it enables the topic to get off subject. when you post a topic with a subject line, people are drawn to post under that subject. otherwise, i lock topics that get off subject, plain and simple. so, please just post one topic at at time. we have journals if you prefer to write about anything you like at random.

John_Farson

Quote by Kerrie because it enables the topic to get off subject. when you post a topic with a subject line, people are drawn to post under that subject. otherwise, i lock topics that get off subject, plain and simple. so, please just post one topic at at time. we have journals if you prefer to write about anything you like at random.

Kerrie I would argue that my views are all on topic. That the subject at hand is my views on Epistemology.

Your own words are:

when you post a topic with a subject line, people are drawn to post under that subject

Thats the exact reason why Im doing what I am doing. As it will let people who want to discuss my ideas on Epistemology discuss them in 1 place. As I said before im not writing anything at random. This thread is all about how I view epistemology. By doing this people will be able to view my entire picture on epistemology and will be able to discuss it ((pros,cons,faults, ect.)) and hopefully this will produce a coherent picture of epistemology.
Seeing how there is nothing else like this in this forum. That allows people to see a complete tapestry of views on Epistemology and how they inter-link, I would ask that this thread not be closed down when the thread eventually starts getting away from just my view on time.

Kerrie

john, there is no flexibility on this policy, please see the pm i sent and continue this on topic of time, or i will need to lock it.

Jonny_trigonometry

Time is funny, notice how none of these online conversations depend on time like all other in person conversations. Since all of what was said can't be disputed because it's all recorded from moment one, this conversation (about time) must at some point come to an end. Does that make sense? Is there an infinate ammount of ways of viewing the concept of time? Perhaps this idea can be used to prove if any topic can be fully understood and/or defined. If there is no more to talk about, then everyone is satisfied that we are talking about the same exact thing? Or do we will the closure of such topics as a means to take our minds off of something we can't understand? Is there no end to conversation as long as there is will to keep talking? If so, then Kerrie is kind of a party pooper... Why do you want to end time as we know it in this particular conversational aventure? (just kidding). If time is highly linked with perception, then does it have anything to do with our will to keep percieving it? One must be alive in order to percieve time, but one can't percieve without the existance of time, ie. one can't be alive and not percieve time. Either time exists, or we aren't alive. "time doesn't exist" <--- now thats a bunch of hooplah!

Jonny_trigonometry

The problem with that argument (about time not existing) is that there is an assumption that was made where the unknown entity (the mind) is given the property that it doesn't need time to think. Try and do that right now, make a train of thought that doesn't take any time to construct... If time doesn't exist, then any person could think of everything at once (because thoughts wouldn't be seperated by techniques we all use to construct them one by one and group by group). The simple fact that correlations between two similar ideas aren't all 100% shows that methods are used to compare two different thoughts. Ideas are all finite and there may as well be an infinate ammount of them, but the fact remains that they are many, not one. How many things can a person think of at once? I argue that a person can only focus thier attention on one thing at any one moment ("snapshot"). If you try to contradict me and think of two things at once, you are in effect thinking of only one thing (or idea), that is composed of two correlated ideas. If you think you can get around it by thinking of two seemingly unrelated things like dolphins and bicycles, think of a dolphin-bicycle, and there you go, however funny the image you get in your head, it is one image. Now think of two seperate images in your head (like, your mom on the left, and a #2 pencil on the right, does that contradict my presumption? I would say not, because this new scene that you can imagine is not two scenes of two different ideas, but it's one idea, manufactured to try to prove me wrong. A person must not be able to think of everything at once, otherwise all thoughts would be 100% correlated with all other thoughts, and there would be no such thing as a single thought. "Time is what keeps everything from happening at once." - My friend Andrew Hayes said this, but I don't know if he was quoting it.

skeletonic

kerrie is just the messenger, we all know freom the "past" that you should not shoot the messenger.

time is real, and it is not real. it is a figment of the imagination. if we were incapable of senceing anything, we prolly wouldnt need tiem to lean on, but time is just what we need it to be. how could i explain when i needed my medication if there was nothing to compare then amd now, thus time was born. i go outside and look at the stars, im not unique in that way, millions of people have done that. but who realizes that most of the stars i am looking at are simply streaks of light traveling across space forever, untill it impacts my retina. although the stars are long dead, i am still able to see them. time may not be accurate, but we use it to serve the purpose it was designed for. if we dint put a name on it would it still be there, if a tree falls in a forest with noone to hear, does it make a sound?

pointless questions without answers. we could make answers, but what would be the point, since we made time in the first place. call it a paradox or watever you want.
we try to measure time by saying that the earth revolves once in 24 hours, we can try to be more accurate by measureing howmany seconds it takes for photons to move from one point to another. but it is all relative to to each individuals point of view, it just so happens that we all are forced to view a complex theory in simplistic terms that are used everyday. it wont change unless we change it. it is wat we want it to be, we dont make it we just view it the only way we can because we are mortal adn we all knwo that our time will end.

Jonny_trigonometry

I should have been more clear, I really don't have anything against Kerrie, in fact I voted for him! or was that Kerry... at any rate

It didn't seem to make a differance though; however, it's possible to fix mistakes as long as there is time to fix them... or do I mean "will to fix them"?

Thank you for willing another iteration of this "greater good" (conversation) into existance. The flavor evolves along with our perception of it, and here I am adding a "garnish" to your "meat and potatoes".

Daminc

My personal opinion is that Time exists independently from anything else and relates to the speed of cause/effect in our universe.

Our perception of Time differs with each individual precisely because we are individuals and are hardwired differently.

Jonny_trigonometry

yes, good point. I can't deny that what I've stated is merely one perception of reality out of the teaming billions of human minds. It's not right for me to think that I've got precedence over everybody else. I'm willing to bet that perhaps everybody is aware of this feeling. Again, this is just my opinion. Is there anything that can said about time which can be agreed upon with certainty from the viewpoint of all human minds? Is that question even valid?

Jonny_trigonometry

whoopse, I messed up the quote thinggy, the paragraph in the middle is my response to the first quote, the one on the bottom (outside of the quote) is my response to the second quote

Marc Carpentier

Here’s my two cents worth…

Everything that we perceive as real is tied to a notion of dimension, whether that be space (here and there), time (then and now), and consciousness (individual and universal). To perceive anything, dichotomies in at least one of the above dimensions must be perceived.

If one by one we could eliminate the seemingly infinite dichotomies that allow us to perceive our individual existences, we would ultimately find that they lose meaning and cease to exist, if they really exist at all. For example, we have a concept of temperature because we can perceive of a temperature that I’ll call hot and a temperature that I’ll call cold. However, what if at all times it was the same temperature everywhere? How would we know temperature exists? Does it matter? The concept of temperature loses its meaning and ceases to exist to us as individuals in this world. In another example, I have men feuding over who is the strongest and who is the weakest until all men have killed one another leaving only two to decide the question. One man kills the other, leaving only himself. This man is now both the strongest and the weakest man. The comparative notion of strength (amongst other things) becomes meaningless. Though in this example the lone man can perceive of it from memory, it loses its meaning in the present tense and ceases to exist.

There is only one time, and it is Now. All moments happen concurrently. There is only one place, and it is Here. All places are in fact right where you are. There is only one consciousness and it is Universal/God. You exist on many levels of consciousness, but they all are really One.


I wrote the below ecstatic poem stream of thought… it says the same thing:


The sun is settling on my lids, and my warm breath expires, rising with me, turning cold with me, settling as I continue beyond its earthly purpose, beyond the earth. Outward and inward at the same time, yet never really moving, realizing that I had never moved, realizing that movement is a dream that I dreamt, and that I had been in one place, motionless, timeless, without punctuation, pauses or rests… that I’ve been and am and will be waiting for you, and you for me, to be here where we are and where we’ll be when we get here. Infinite as it may seem, we’ve been everywhere with a stillness. Today, I awoke from the dream and realized that I am boundless and forever.

Jonny_trigonometry

"Everything that we perceive as real is tied to a notion of dimension, whether that be space (here and there), time (then and now), and consciousness (individual and universal). To perceive anything, dichotomies in at least one of the above dimensions must be perceived" - Marc Carpentier

hmm, dichotomies... you mean like how a photon only uses 2 out of the 4 dimensions (no length in the direction of travel, no rate of time)? but what about a particle? those use all 4 dimensions, so there is no dichotomy? I also noticed that you defined "perception" using the word "perception". In accord with your stance, would that itself be a dichotomy, and therefore be real?

"Though in this example the lone man can perceive of it from memory, it loses its meaning in the present tense and ceases to exist." - Marc Carpentier

interesting, do you define all things that exist to have meaning? If something doesn't have any meaning, then it doesn't exist?