Time and space, duality and non-duality:

[jupiviv]

Possibly only one or two people have come any close to clearly explaining what time and space are. The rest of the things written about them range from nonsense to extremely vague descriptions. This points to the utter lack of consciousness of even the best of the so-called "intellectual" humans, like Einstein.

What is time and space? Simple - time is causality, and space is duality. The past is the things we perceive to be the causes of something, and the future is what we perceive to be the effects of the present(which in turn is the effect of the past). The whole of causality revolves around the present. So once you fully understand what the present is, you also understand all of time.

If man once acts with the strongest will so that all universality of his self (and of the world, for he is indeed the microcosm) is set in the moment, then has he overcome time and become divine. - Otto Weininger.

This does not mean that time is not real. It is very real, but the deluded perception of it is what should be overcome.

Space, on the other hand, is the perception of duality. Consciousness necessitates other causal chains, and this "other" is space. Distance/dimension is the perception of a causal chain separate from one's own, the number of dimensions being proportional to the number of other causal chains perceived. The "I" is 1, but the conception of more than 2 numbers itself arises when duality is perceived between two things separate from the "I." However, the basic duality holds true no matter how complex a system, and this is why logic holds true for all of space. There is a message in the Bhagavad Geeta about this, when Krishna first shows Arjun his infinite-armed aspect, and then his simple two-armed aspect.

Anyways, this is why numbers/statistics can never solely be a standard for truth, for truth only exists when a thing is put in relation to the "I". And this is also why *only* individuality is the path to enlightenment, and never collectivity. Science is never truly individual because it deals with knowledge - space that is not in direct relation to the "I", and this is why there can be no absolute scientific truths. Knowledge(concepts) can only be possible when the relation between two causal chains is perceived. The basic duality is innocence. But this doesn't mean that we should ignore knowledge, for that would merely be ignorance.

Belief, on the other hand, creates knowledge, by bringing the spatial into time - into a relation with the causal chain of the "I". Therefore belief is strictly individual. Only belief can make something true, and logic is true only if there is belief in logic. However, this cannot be any other way, because logic is consciousness of duality, and belief is consciousness of causality. The two are essentially the same thing - consciousness.

All criminality is a negation of belief, i.e, time(A person can inwardly perish through nothing other than a lack of religion. - Weininger). All insanity is a negation of logic, i.e, space. Nietzsche's insanity was due to his attempts to go past logic and rationality, as is clearly evident in his books. Weininger's suicide, on the other hand, was the result of a total loss of belief. Suicide is the worst crime, as it seeks to negate belief altogether. Jesus also went to his death because he had lost all belief. Before dying, he called out to God in despair, "Why have you forsaken me!"

Cowardice is the precedent to insanity, as it is the fear of space. Boredom is the precedent to criminality, as it's the fear of time.

Motion is the spatial correlate of change. The distinction drawn between two entities in the same causal chain is change, and the distinction drawn between two different causal chains is motion.

Conscious beings can be divided into two categories - the ones who hold the particulars of causality and duality to be real, and the ones that hold the whole of causality or duality to be real. Regarding space, the former is a dualist, and the latter is a non-dualist. Only particular objects in space have reality for the dualist, while the non-dualist considers only the whole of space to be real. Regarding time, the person who is a dualist becomes a non-determinist, while the one who is a non-dualist becomes a determinist. Only the particular causes are real for the former, while for the latter, only the whole of causality is real. In sexuality - the dualist is a sadist, as a single woman is completely real to him. The non-dualist is a masochist - a woman must always be a symbol for a larger reality. As a non-determinist, the sadist likes to play fate. The sadist is the fate of the woman, while the woman is the fate of the masochist(determinism.)

Both dualism and non-dualism should be overcome in philosophy, as both are founded on a distorted perception of reality, and both nullify reality in their own ways.

[IJesusChrist]

YOU make dualism.

If you allow dualism, so it is! Tah dah!

[Pincho Paxton]

Possibly only one or two people have come any close to clearly explaining what time and space are. The rest of the things written about them range from nonsense to extremely vague descriptions. This points to the utter lack of consciousness of even the best of the so-called "intellectual" humans, like Einstein.

What is time and space? Simple - time is causality, and space is duality. The past is the things we perceive to be the causes of something, and the future is what we perceive to be the effects of the present(which in turn is the effect of the past). Ultimately though, present, past and future all cause each other, but this occurs outside of time(and space). The whole of causality revolves around the present. So once you fully understand what the present is, you also understand all of time.

If man once acts with the strongest will so that all universality of his self (and of the world, for he is indeed the microcosm) is set in the moment, then has he overcome time and become divine. - Otto Weininger.

This does not mean that time is not real. It is very real, but the deluded perception of it is what should be overcome.

Space, on the other hand, is the perception of duality. Consciousness necessitates other causal chains, and this "other" is space. Distance/dimension is the perception of a causal chain separate from one's own, the number of dimensions being proportional to the number of other causal chains perceived. The "I" is 1, but the conception of more than 2 numbers itself arises when duality is perceived between two things separate from the "I." However, the basic duality holds true no matter how complex a system, and this is why logic holds true for all of space. There is a message in the Bhagavad Geeta about this, when Krishna first shows Arjun his infinite-armed aspect, and then his simple two-armed aspect.

Anyways, this is why numbers/statistics can never solely be a standard for truth, for truth only exists when a thing is put in relation to the "I". And this is also why *only* individuality is the path to enlightenment, and never collectivity. Science is never truly individual because it deals with knowledge - space that is not in direct relation to the "I", and this is why there can be no absolute scientific truths. Knowledge(concepts) can only be possible when the relation between two causal chains is perceived. The basic duality is innocence. But this doesn't mean that we should ignore knowledge, for that would merely be ignorance.

Belief, on the other hand, creates knowledge, by bringing the spatial into time - into a relation with the causal chain of the "I". Therefore belief is strictly individual. Only belief can make something true, and logic is true only if there is belief in logic. However, this cannot be any other way, because logic is consciousness of duality, and belief is consciousness of causality. The two are essentially the same thing - consciousness.

All criminality is a negation of belief, i.e, time(A person can inwardly perish through nothing other than a lack of religion. - Weininger). All insanity is a negation of logic, i.e, space. Nietzsche's insanity was due to his attempts to go past logic and rationality, as is clearly evident in his books. Weininger's suicide, on the other hand, was the result of a total loss of belief. Suicide is the worst crime, as it seeks to negate belief altogether. Jesus also went to his death because he had lost all belief. Before dying, he called out to God in despair, "Why have you forsaken me!"

Cowardice is the precedent to insanity, as it is the fear of space. Boredom is the precedent to criminality, as it's the fear of time.

Motion is the spatial correlate of change. The distinction drawn between two entities in the same causal chain is change, and the distinction drawn between two different causal chains is motion.

Conscious beings can be divided into two categories - the ones who hold the particulars of causality and duality to be real, and the ones that hold the whole of causality or duality to be real. Regarding space, the former is a dualist, and the latter is a non-dualist. Only particular objects in space have reality for the dualist, while the non-dualist considers only the whole of space to be real. Regarding time, the person who is a dualist becomes a non-determinist, while the one who is a non-dualist becomes a determinist. Only the particular causes are real for the former, while for the latter, only the whole of causality is real. In sexuality - the dualist is a sadist, as a single woman is completely real to him. The non-dualist is a masochist - a woman must always be a symbol for a larger reality. As a non-determinist, the sadist likes to play fate. The sadist is the fate of the woman, while the woman is the fate of the masochist(determinism.)

Both dualism and non-dualism should be overcome in philosophy, as both are founded on a distorted perception of reality, and both nullify reality in their own ways.

Time, and Space... they aren't starting points for any description of any events... they are too enormous to consider. It's like using the dictionary for a sentence, instead of a word...

Time = Movement, physics, growth, ageing, decay, propagation, relativity, history, birth, cause, memory, death.

A lot of the references of time don't properly overlap one another... past, future.. are miles apart. For an entity not to tie in with itself makes it a nonsense.

Space= Vacuum containing matter, bends sometimes infinitely inwards.

It's not even like replacing God with something sensible, it's just replacing God with the opposite useless side of the brain.

You don't need time, you need to replace nothing with something else. Take a hole, and put something in it, because the hole could never exist. A hole has to be in something, a hole can't be in itself. So the hole is never a hole. Once you replace the hole, you have the cause. You can't replace the hole with time, it's not physical enough to put time in a hole.

[Lang5000]

@ OP

Your concept of duality and non-duality is wrong, purely from the fact that there is a "thinker" who perceives of it.

There aren't conscious beings who can be divided into 2 categories. There are simply those that are dualistic

pure consciousness is non dualism, as there is no thinker, to think upon concepts, It's pure awareness and presence.

[Anders Schlander]

I think suicide can be just as egotistical as having a child, in a sense, both of them is the ego, not the belief in God/ The Divine/Tao etc, so a lack of faith in god and an unsatisfying life leads to both in a sense. Suicide and Childbirth doesn't neccesarily have to be driven by an ego though. But i've given it some thought, and for alot of people, it seems equally selfish to want a baby and start a life, as it does for 'alot' of people to end theirs again.

space only appears relative to objects, and objects, only relative to space. The 'whole of space' also entails 'the whole of objects', that determine space. But the important part is that of understanding non-duality(God), using the mind that works dualistically. Things must not be thought of as existing on their own, nor must they be thought of as seperate. Even though All things are god, and that points to a non-dualistic nature, we can't hold god to be non-dualistic, he is beyond catagories, he is all catagories, he's both the non-dual, and all the dual. it seems that we can use our minds to find out about God(using duality), but God can never have a form, or, atleast, his 'form' comes to light via our consciousness everyday, which is what we get of him.

[David Quinn]

Do we exist? Yes. Are we conscious? Yes. Then let’s see just how much!

Which sounds good, except the task seems to be:

let understanding ‘come upon one of its own’,

And suddenly the whole thing grinds to a halt.

-

[David Quinn]

That pretty much sums up the content of your posts, minus the exclamation marks.

-

[IJesusChrist]

Time is either;
A dimension, with an allowance of observable change
or
A figment of the imagination, a byproduct of consciousness.

Its only mysterious if you make it ...

The theory of relativity is very simple; the math is complex because your dealing with topology, the change of space... which... is actually a very simple concept. As you accelerate, to make up for the constants in our universe, certain things must compress or expand. Space is one of those 'things' that holds these constants...

It's all very easy once you look at it from the outside.

[jupiviv]

Time is not causality, it is an effect of perception.

This definition is so vague that I can't even understand how it counters what I said.

Yes real, but who’s to say the perception is deluded when we have not yet overcome it? :D

Who's "we"? I've overcome the deluded perception.

As I have intimated here already, it is immature (religious) nature that would have consciousness ‘necessitate’ space; it is enough that it necessitates itself.

So it is religious and immature to say that man necessitates God's existence, but not religious and immature to say that God necessitates his own existence?

P.S: I got a challenge for you. Take this IQ test. If you score more than me, then you can keep pestering me. If I score more, then you can't visit this forum for 30 days. Game?

[David Quinn]

dejavu: Where one is no longer willing to let understanding ‘come upon one of its own’, one must want to behold, as opposed to solve, the overcoming of everything.

David: That pretty much sums up the content of your posts, minus the exclamation marks.

Ah David, you must think I "one-up" you for the hell of it, just because I can!

I'm simply expressing what I really think. Your posts are little more than bluster, filled with half-formed ideas which peter out before they even get off the ground (despite the attempt to artificially power them with exclamation marks and italics), all mixed together with an underlying smugness which is argumentative just for the sake of it.

This is not so. Has truth need of us? The most we can do is love it, express it. Where we overcome the "truths" of others with our own truth, should we question it? Possibly, if it is genuinely thought that the motive therein is to serve some petty, punitive end. Is it --the more truth, the merrier? And if it isn't, shouldn't we then busy ourselves making it so?

And here is a prime example. Half-baked ideas directed aimlessly to no one in particular, all wrapped up in a quasi-Nietzsche veneer. It's as though you have a strong fear of focus, but have found the neat trick of using Nietzsche's formulaic passion to keep spreading yourself away from it.

-

[jupiviv]

Time is an effect of perception.

Repeating a phrase again doesn't make it any clearer. Everything is "an effect of our perception", since everything exists only if they appear to our minds. This doesn't have anything specifically to with time.

Though I can't see what this has to do with what I wrote, no it is not religious to say that man necessitates gods existence, but yes religious to say "God necessitates his own existence"

So if it is religious to say that God(an entity) necessitates his own existence, then how is it *not* religious to say that space(also an entity in this case) necessitates it's own existence??? The distinctions you're making are invalid.

[David Quinn]

David, do you have anything to say concerning the topic you blowhard? True I can be an impatient smart-arse at times, but it's funny being called smug by you! I think you're peeved that I shoot down your lies from time to time, and don't care to be 'delicate' in doing so. Like jupiviv, you can say I'm being vague all you like, but you've yet to directly counter anything I write. I'm willing to make this about focus if you like. What a cop-out it is to point to the exclamations or inflections in my writing as opposed to addressing the content itself.

It is the content I am having trouble with - or rather, the way the content is comprised of shards of mini-ideas which are just sort of thrown out there in an ad-hoc fashion. I don't have any inclination to sift through them in order to find a point of interest. So if you want to converse with me, then you need to slow down and concentrate on putting out fully-formed thoughts, one at a time, spaced apart, each one backed up with some solid reasoning, and which actually have some relevance to the points I make. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

So let's try again:

Has truth need of us? The most we can do is love it, express it. Where we overcome the "truths" of others with our own truth, should we question it? Possibly, if it is genuinely thought that the motive therein is to serve some petty, punitive end. Is it --the more truth, the merrier? And if it isn't, shouldn't we then busy ourselves making it so?

Why are you telling me all this?

-

[jupiviv]

That's not even English, let alone truth.

You consider that to be a truth, and it appears to your mind.

How did "God" suddenly graduate from concept to entity and acquire a sex in the process? You are the one who made the invalid (religious) distinction. Space necessitates itself by virtue of its existence. "God" is necessitated by man alone.

The statement that space necessitates itself by virtue of its existence is not religious....? Making random assertions without any reasoning is not religious?

[Pincho Paxton]

It's time to dissect time...

Let's take a look at the very little evidence that we have...

Two planes fly around the Earth in opposite directions, and Einstein predicted that their clocks would show different times because the Earth's spin creates two different speeds for the planes, and Einstein said that time is related to speed.

Now remember.. if Q = P it doesn't mean that P = Q. In this case it is...

If motion = time, it doesn't meant that time = motion. What it really means is that motion happens, and lets dissect why motion happens.

Back to the two planes.. yes the clocks did show different times, but clocks are also a form of motion. These particular clocks were atomic clocks. Clocks with atoms as cause to motion, and displaying time. As you can see, the time is a result of motion, which signifies that motion was the origin of the time displayed on the clock...

Motion first... time second.

It is very important to understand that the motion of the electrons in the atomic clock came before the result of the time displayed on the clock. The motion was the reality, and the time was only for the benefit of man to understand how long it took for the electron to create a pulse.

So we now have the truth that the electrons going around the Earth in opposite directions pulsed at different beats. So what makes an electron pulse?....

If we said that time made the electron pulse we would be using time as a physical entity, but we don't need it, because it wouldn't really explain what time was. All we would know is that it made the electron pulse. let's figure out what really made the electron pulse...

We know that the planes are travelling through something, and that something is different in both directions of the Earth's spin. What are the electrons travelling through?

We know it's invisible.. and you look at science to the history of movement through an invisible substance in Wikipedia, and it says.. The Aether.

We can deduce then that The Aether caused the electrons to pulse at different speeds in the two directions...

An electron spins inside an atom, we could further deduce that the pulse happens inside the atom, and is cause by passing through The Aether. What is a pulse?...

Lets look at science for a pulse.. we can scale the atom up being as nature is a fractal, and we can look for a larger pulse in the Universe.. the pulsar...

It is known that a pulsar is created by a Black Hole. I added my theory to a pulsar, and a Black Hole is created by the pressure of the Aether crushing against a membrane until the membrane broke, and the pulsar is created by material getting blocked in the hole, and causing an explosion releasing electrons, and a radio wave.

Back inside the atom we would now require the physics of a pulsar, and I already had a pulsar figured out, so I can use that deduction...

The centre of an atom is crushed so small that it is about to explode (it's my zero rule, that zero can't happen). The pressure is like the force on the sides of a submarine. The pressure collapses the centre releasing the electron as an explosion. The electron goes into orbit, but the pressure towards the centre is to great for the electron to fight against, and it is pulled back again into what you might call a tiny black hole. This causes yet another explosion, and the electron is released again..

At last we have a pulse. The electron being pulled in, and released...

and that is time....

But we can't call it time, because every atom will be pulsing at a different time.. relativity. A group of atoms gathered together will get into sync, but spaced apart will be out of sync. Time therefore is split into different speeds all over the Universe...

It is far better to realise that this is just a pulse. Otherwise.. "You can go back in time!", you can't actually go back in pulse. there are big differences...

if Q = P it doesn't mean that P = Q.

But what else has a pulse... a human. If I took this theory even further you have sentience, life, and the Theory Of Everything... and now you can deduce...

Why do female periods synchronise?

And one final thought on the matter... you can see how the Hadron Collider works now.