A compilation of The Good Mans thoughts: Time

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_Farson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Thoughts Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the philosophical concept of time, exploring its nature, perception, and implications. Participants share various viewpoints on how time is understood in relation to individual experience and societal constructs, with references to epistemology and consciousness.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that time is relative and linked to individual experience, proposing that time is measured by personal events rather than objective clocks.
  • Another participant argues that while time may be perceived differently, there exists a constant measurement of distance traveled, regardless of individual perception.
  • A quote from Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso is shared, emphasizing that time depends on relational experiences and cannot exist independently.
  • Some participants express a preference for separate threads for each idea, arguing that this keeps discussions focused and organized.
  • One participant humorously questions the nature of time in online discussions, suggesting that recorded conversations challenge traditional notions of time and understanding.
  • Another participant challenges the idea that time does not exist, arguing that thoughts require time to construct and that existence itself is tied to the perception of time.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of time and its perception, with no consensus reached on whether time exists independently or is solely a construct of individual experience. Additionally, there is disagreement on the format of discussions, with some advocating for separate threads while others prefer a single thread for related ideas.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of discussing time, including its dependence on individual perception and the challenges of defining it within philosophical frameworks. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of time and its implications for understanding consciousness.

  • #61
You can call it an aether, a quantum vacuum, or simply space-time. It's the thing that we exist within, and if it were to be curved, crumpled, squashed, twisted or whatever, everything within it would also.

If you look at the stars, you think that you are looking in a straight line, because the photons that reach your eye come from these distant objects seemingly in a direct line of sight. space-time could be "bent" (in higher dimensional space) in between you and the star, and the photons would travel through this bent region and also bend with it, because they are bounded within space-time, and it still looks like you are looking straight forward, but if you could view this scenario from "higher dimensional space" (the space that space-time exists within) you would see that the space in between you and the star is not linear. To you, within space-time, your line of sight appears linear. So you can't know how space-time is bent unless you can see it from the outside.

In GR, mass is the bridge between the curvature of space-time (within higher dimensional space) and us (within space-time). Einstein stated that a curvature of space-time produces a force within space-time, and the curvature is caused by mass. So this gives rise to gravitational effects. The scenerio I was explaining above is sort of like this, but I wasn't thinking of curvature as producing a force that we could feel. If curvature of space didnt' produce any forces within space, then it could be distorted in any way shape or form without us being able to detect. it could loop around and fold and twist in all sorts of ways between you and your computer screen and you wouldn't be able to tell. The main thing that GR does is assume that the curvature of space produces a force within space.

a 2D piece of paper can't be folded in 2D, it must need another dimension to be able to be folded. a crumpled up piece of paper can only exist in 3D. think of space invaders the video game, all the characters and environment in that game are in a 2D universe, so if you could fold their world (which exists in a 2D plane) they would also be folded, and to them, things are no different because the photons they use to see each other follow the folded path also, so everything still looks the same to them. If you crumpled it up, everything would still look the same to them. They wouldn't be aware that their entire universe was crumpled up in a higher dimensional space.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
11K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
7K