Humans perceive time through the mind: Time is only a construct of the mind: Time does not exist. During waking consciousness, our brain waves are programmed to experience reality at a constant equilibrium. But, is this equilibrium universal? A fly experiences a far different reality than we do. Can we safely make the assumption that 'the true essence of the universe' adheres to our perceptual experience of time?
Time is highly relative. If the universe is a Mind (and assuming that The Mind is equivalent to our minds), then it could very well be true that shifts in the speed at which time was 'experienced' occured at the conception of our universe. Why? Because our minds process time relative to perception - perception is relative to the frequency of thought.
If the universe is a Mind, then it would also follow that all past, present, and future states are One - existing as ideas, adhering to the infinite causal process.
Observing that nature is highly organized and efficient, the universe could be viewed as a circle, where space and time are a connected continous line. with no beginning and no end.
Time
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Time
sevens wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>If the universe is a Mind, then it would also follow that all past, present, and future states are One - existing as ideas, adhering to the infinite causal process.<hr> Past, present, and future states are One regardless of whether the universe is a Mind or not. They are all part of the one causal process, which neither has the nature of Mind or matter.
This need to turn everything into Mind is little different to the Christian need to turn everything into a creation by a loving God. It's a naked attempt by the ego to assume control over everything.
Quote:Quote:<hr>If the universe is a Mind, then it would also follow that all past, present, and future states are One - existing as ideas, adhering to the infinite causal process.<hr> Past, present, and future states are One regardless of whether the universe is a Mind or not. They are all part of the one causal process, which neither has the nature of Mind or matter.
This need to turn everything into Mind is little different to the Christian need to turn everything into a creation by a loving God. It's a naked attempt by the ego to assume control over everything.
-
creativegal
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:45 pm
Re: Time
"Time is only a constuct of the mind"
"Time is highly relative. If the universe is a mind, (and assuming The Mind is equivalent to our mind)then it could very well be true that shifts in the speed at which time was 'experienced' occurred at the conception of our universe. Why? Because our minds process time relative to perception-perception is relative to our thought"
This is most definately a concept worth reading, it makes sense to me. And the bottom sentence is true.
Good night
"Time is highly relative. If the universe is a mind, (and assuming The Mind is equivalent to our mind)then it could very well be true that shifts in the speed at which time was 'experienced' occurred at the conception of our universe. Why? Because our minds process time relative to perception-perception is relative to our thought"
This is most definately a concept worth reading, it makes sense to me. And the bottom sentence is true.
Good night
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Time
Sevens wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>If the universe is a Mind (and assuming that The Mind is equivalent to our minds), then it could very well be true that shifts in the speed at which time was 'experienced' occured at the conception of our universe. Why? Because our minds process time relative to perception - perception is relative to the frequency of thought.<hr>
Huh? What do you mean "at the conception of our universe"? And, for that matter, what do you mean by "universe"?
Dan Rowden
Quote:Quote:<hr>If the universe is a Mind (and assuming that The Mind is equivalent to our minds), then it could very well be true that shifts in the speed at which time was 'experienced' occured at the conception of our universe. Why? Because our minds process time relative to perception - perception is relative to the frequency of thought.<hr>
Huh? What do you mean "at the conception of our universe"? And, for that matter, what do you mean by "universe"?
Dan Rowden
Re: Time
Conception: A big bang of a birth, where through the process of differentiation, perpetually altered states of 'time' could have existed. A phenomenon similar to the processes that occur when an abundance of chemicals floods the brain.
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Time
But what you said, essentially, is that the universe conceived of the universe. I don't get it. What's the difference between "the" universe and "our" universe?
Dan Rowden
Dan Rowden
Re: Time
From Weininger's On the Unidirectionality of Time (and its ethical significance) in On Last Things:
Quote:Quote:<hr>The unidirectionality of time is consequently identical with the fact that the human being is at bottom a being that wills. Time is the ego as will.<hr>
Quote:Quote:<hr>The unidirectionality of time is consequently identical with the fact that the human being is at bottom a being that wills. Time is the ego as will.<hr>
Re: Time
'Highly chaotic events' gives time no constant to safely burrow. In our normal beta wave state, time is comparable to sin patterns - does this eliminate the possiblity of tangent patterns?
We can not safely make any strict assumptions concerning the true nature of time before human consciousness.
We can not safely make any strict assumptions concerning the true nature of time before human consciousness.
Re: Time
<img src="http://members.cox.net/abstractanimation/0.jpg" style="border:0;"/>
'Time'is the eternal oscillation of energy between a dormant/simple state and a active/complex.
<img src="http://members.cox.net/evolutionnow/repeat.gif" style="border:0;"/>
Since the <a href="http://repetition.freeservers.com/cycle.html" target="top">eternal cycle</a> is repetitous, it serves as a universal clock.
<img src="http://www.kirael.com/graphics/earth_moon.jpg" style="border:0;"/>
For the most part words about 'time' in the human experience involve our comparison of smaller movements to the movement of the earth (on it's axis - day, around the sun - year), and the subdivisions of those units of measuring.
In reality there is no past or future, only memories of movements or projections of movements. Everything unfolds in the 'now' and in the sense we think of 'time', it is the only time.
'Time'is the eternal oscillation of energy between a dormant/simple state and a active/complex.
<img src="http://members.cox.net/evolutionnow/repeat.gif" style="border:0;"/>
Since the <a href="http://repetition.freeservers.com/cycle.html" target="top">eternal cycle</a> is repetitous, it serves as a universal clock.
<img src="http://www.kirael.com/graphics/earth_moon.jpg" style="border:0;"/>
For the most part words about 'time' in the human experience involve our comparison of smaller movements to the movement of the earth (on it's axis - day, around the sun - year), and the subdivisions of those units of measuring.
In reality there is no past or future, only memories of movements or projections of movements. Everything unfolds in the 'now' and in the sense we think of 'time', it is the only time.
Re: Time
Thinker - can you get anything out of this?
Time is my god. Not, of course as a mere measure of the spatial change in things, but as an acknowledgement of the fact of the flow of change, of the existence of this effect from the universe on our senses and upon which the existence of everything depends. To me time is not just an appearance of the effect of change, but it is an observation of a casual force that induces change. It is the foundational force upon which all other physical forces are derived, albeit that these secondary forces are mere different appearances of times flow or interaction with nothingness.
If you think about it, nothing can precede time, other than itself. Therefore it is self-creating. Everything else must have some form of preceding influence other than itself. Time logically even precedes 'existence-without-form'.
Perhaps it does not precede nothingness, but surely that is irrelevant in terms of the totality. Nothingness can only be viewed as pure potentiality, which when influenced by time becomes some form of existence. Like time nothingness must be infinite, but not in the sense of a spatial dimension or from a cause and effect flow, but as something without boundaries because it has no limitation on being a receiving force. While it is outside time it has no existence. It is the thing that is time’s required opposite, and it gains recognisable existence when it is essentially created by time. Its recognisable existence becomes empty space only when combined in some fashion with time.
Even in the world of known things a degree of nothingness is a requirement for movement, as is movement a requirement for existence. We also have gravity, which could be described as a universal force or will to make solid, to fill, to rid itself of pockets of nothingness. IMO, gravity is time in action. It must be, because like time and nothingness, it is permanent and does not lose force or change in any way over time and it cannot possibly be a third, intrinsic and foundational force of the universe.
To be infinite as a thing that something must only flow in one way, it cannot reverse or change. Nor can it exist on its own as a solo thing cannot create things.
So time must act to fill, to change nothingness into matter, by first creating space from nothingness, and then gradually filling this nothingness with gravity layers, from which varying patterns of gravity interaction occur, from which patterns within patterns can occur, and thus we have things. From space containing only light to a black hole, we can see there is a flow from near nothingness to fullness. Mind you it not a perfect flow, in that as things interact with other things groupings of relative fullness can be broken apart into smaller pieces. Ultimately though they all end up in a black hole - a spatial situation that could be described as near full of the force of gravity.
If the big bang was the cause of the universe, then clearly something preceded it. Whatever that something was, one aspect we can be sure of is that it, or the existences that preceded it, exists using some form of time, otherwise there could be no cause to create the big bang. No form of creation is possible without this creationary process occurring over time. There must be a flow.
Time therefore is not just imaginary but the true self-creating force of the totality and nothingness is the true non-self destructing force of the universe.
In essence being infinite means continually creating more of oneself. This is what time does, and by doing so it expands and begins to flow due to the 'gravity weight' difference between those areas where it is newly expanding into nothingness and those 'internal' areas where it is expanding within areas it has already created. The actual process of time’s expansion is how spatial nothingness is created. Time cannot expand without creation, and creation requires something to be taken away to make something else. When time expands it creates a kind of hollowness within itself. It continually expands spatially, but without actually changing its nature. This hollowness is how finite nothingness is created (as opposed to the infinite nothingness, which does not exist except as a potentiality). Gravity is caused by the combined expansion of time and the contraction of nothingness working in concert between patterns of existence that have different ratios of nothingness and time.
While things have an age, it is only the age of the pattern of it’s A=A-ness. When things are conceptualised as a flow, as things without form, then they become ageless, although they must still exist within time, or they would be static. So again time is not just a tool of measurement but a real force.
If matter existed as some form of solid base matter, then it could not enter nothingness. It is simply impossible for such matter to move into or affect nothingness. Light is a form of matter so it cannot enter or merge nothingness. I mention light because if there is an edge to the universe then I am suggesting that something must precede the expansion of this light into newly created areas of the universe. Something must be faster than light. Gravity is faster than light and so is time, being that gravity is merely caused by the way in which time interacts with the nothingness contained within matter. Mass is really the true age of matter, the weightier the mass, the older it is, and the more gravity it has because time is expanding within it creating a complementary hollowness and a barrier to the influence of the expanding time in the lighter mass that surrounds the particular object.
So if the totality has a form of infinity, and any existence at all proves that it must, due the impossibility of anything being outside of cause and effect, except for those things like time and nothingness that force the cause and effect process to occur and that also must be self-creating.
(yeah, yeah, I know, as usual my theories re time have loose ends, particularly in relation to how gravity works. Still I am certain that some of the logic is correct and can be used to form a theory of everything).
Time is my god. Not, of course as a mere measure of the spatial change in things, but as an acknowledgement of the fact of the flow of change, of the existence of this effect from the universe on our senses and upon which the existence of everything depends. To me time is not just an appearance of the effect of change, but it is an observation of a casual force that induces change. It is the foundational force upon which all other physical forces are derived, albeit that these secondary forces are mere different appearances of times flow or interaction with nothingness.
If you think about it, nothing can precede time, other than itself. Therefore it is self-creating. Everything else must have some form of preceding influence other than itself. Time logically even precedes 'existence-without-form'.
Perhaps it does not precede nothingness, but surely that is irrelevant in terms of the totality. Nothingness can only be viewed as pure potentiality, which when influenced by time becomes some form of existence. Like time nothingness must be infinite, but not in the sense of a spatial dimension or from a cause and effect flow, but as something without boundaries because it has no limitation on being a receiving force. While it is outside time it has no existence. It is the thing that is time’s required opposite, and it gains recognisable existence when it is essentially created by time. Its recognisable existence becomes empty space only when combined in some fashion with time.
Even in the world of known things a degree of nothingness is a requirement for movement, as is movement a requirement for existence. We also have gravity, which could be described as a universal force or will to make solid, to fill, to rid itself of pockets of nothingness. IMO, gravity is time in action. It must be, because like time and nothingness, it is permanent and does not lose force or change in any way over time and it cannot possibly be a third, intrinsic and foundational force of the universe.
To be infinite as a thing that something must only flow in one way, it cannot reverse or change. Nor can it exist on its own as a solo thing cannot create things.
So time must act to fill, to change nothingness into matter, by first creating space from nothingness, and then gradually filling this nothingness with gravity layers, from which varying patterns of gravity interaction occur, from which patterns within patterns can occur, and thus we have things. From space containing only light to a black hole, we can see there is a flow from near nothingness to fullness. Mind you it not a perfect flow, in that as things interact with other things groupings of relative fullness can be broken apart into smaller pieces. Ultimately though they all end up in a black hole - a spatial situation that could be described as near full of the force of gravity.
If the big bang was the cause of the universe, then clearly something preceded it. Whatever that something was, one aspect we can be sure of is that it, or the existences that preceded it, exists using some form of time, otherwise there could be no cause to create the big bang. No form of creation is possible without this creationary process occurring over time. There must be a flow.
Time therefore is not just imaginary but the true self-creating force of the totality and nothingness is the true non-self destructing force of the universe.
In essence being infinite means continually creating more of oneself. This is what time does, and by doing so it expands and begins to flow due to the 'gravity weight' difference between those areas where it is newly expanding into nothingness and those 'internal' areas where it is expanding within areas it has already created. The actual process of time’s expansion is how spatial nothingness is created. Time cannot expand without creation, and creation requires something to be taken away to make something else. When time expands it creates a kind of hollowness within itself. It continually expands spatially, but without actually changing its nature. This hollowness is how finite nothingness is created (as opposed to the infinite nothingness, which does not exist except as a potentiality). Gravity is caused by the combined expansion of time and the contraction of nothingness working in concert between patterns of existence that have different ratios of nothingness and time.
While things have an age, it is only the age of the pattern of it’s A=A-ness. When things are conceptualised as a flow, as things without form, then they become ageless, although they must still exist within time, or they would be static. So again time is not just a tool of measurement but a real force.
If matter existed as some form of solid base matter, then it could not enter nothingness. It is simply impossible for such matter to move into or affect nothingness. Light is a form of matter so it cannot enter or merge nothingness. I mention light because if there is an edge to the universe then I am suggesting that something must precede the expansion of this light into newly created areas of the universe. Something must be faster than light. Gravity is faster than light and so is time, being that gravity is merely caused by the way in which time interacts with the nothingness contained within matter. Mass is really the true age of matter, the weightier the mass, the older it is, and the more gravity it has because time is expanding within it creating a complementary hollowness and a barrier to the influence of the expanding time in the lighter mass that surrounds the particular object.
So if the totality has a form of infinity, and any existence at all proves that it must, due the impossibility of anything being outside of cause and effect, except for those things like time and nothingness that force the cause and effect process to occur and that also must be self-creating.
(yeah, yeah, I know, as usual my theories re time have loose ends, particularly in relation to how gravity works. Still I am certain that some of the logic is correct and can be used to form a theory of everything).
Re: Time
time is like a bugs bunny cartoon
the life in it lasts for minutes while you see one drawing at a time!
jimhaz are you sure
that something must exist only after time is created?
not before?
matter may not exist before time
but i think existance can be not in time but outside...>_> Edited by: sloof at: 7/6/05 15:26
the life in it lasts for minutes while you see one drawing at a time!
jimhaz are you sure
that something must exist only after time is created?
not before?
matter may not exist before time
but i think existance can be not in time but outside...>_> Edited by: sloof at: 7/6/05 15:26
Re: Time
Fools
that something must exist only after time is created?
not before?
I am not really saying time WAS created, so there is no after and before.
I am saying its expansion is self-created and thus infinite, something for which it is impossible for it not to have always existed. Only things that are self-created (namely whose existence is not caused by other means) can be infinite.
matter may not exist before time
but i think existance can be not in time but outside...
That something outside of time would be static, unmoving, and thus non-observable and thus non-existent.
that something must exist only after time is created?
not before?
I am not really saying time WAS created, so there is no after and before.
I am saying its expansion is self-created and thus infinite, something for which it is impossible for it not to have always existed. Only things that are self-created (namely whose existence is not caused by other means) can be infinite.
matter may not exist before time
but i think existance can be not in time but outside...
That something outside of time would be static, unmoving, and thus non-observable and thus non-existent.
Re: Time
Quote:Quote:<hr>If you think about it, nothing can precede time, other than itself. Therefore it is self-creating.<hr>
In my model of reality...
'time'is the largest movement of reality (the <a href="http://repetition.freeservers.com/cycle.html" target="top">eternal cycle</a>).
It is the activity of the nature of ourself as energy and not something we can separate from ourself and therefore it is not created as it is always present and always part of our nature.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Perhaps it does not precede nothingness, but surely that is irrelevant in terms of the totality. Nothingness can only be viewed as pure potentiality, <hr>
'Nothingness' or no-thing(s)-ness to me would be the primary vibration...not separate from the process but part of it. In other words I don't see it as a separate place or thing other than the vibration but the greater (infinite?) part and foundation for the deviation into complex vibrations.
Quote:Quote:<hr>So time must act to fill, to change nothingness into matter, by first creating space from nothingness, and then gradually filling this nothingness with gravity layers, from which varying patterns of gravity interaction occur, from which patterns within patterns can occur, and thus we have things. <hr>I see these actions but once again do not divide them into separate things...
time is just our word for the cycle..
we are this...(if it could be picturedwith a boundary)
<img src="http://members.cox.net/evolutionnow/repeat.gif" style="border:0;"/>
our movement,
as it relates to physical reality,
might look like no-thing-ness at one point
and
look like this if an observer could watch the process from outside...
<img src="http://members.cox.net/evolutionnow/pop.gif" style="border:0;"/>
Some estimate this whole process is 311 trillion years compared to the movement of our planet around the sun.
In my model of reality...
'time'is the largest movement of reality (the <a href="http://repetition.freeservers.com/cycle.html" target="top">eternal cycle</a>).
It is the activity of the nature of ourself as energy and not something we can separate from ourself and therefore it is not created as it is always present and always part of our nature.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Perhaps it does not precede nothingness, but surely that is irrelevant in terms of the totality. Nothingness can only be viewed as pure potentiality, <hr>
'Nothingness' or no-thing(s)-ness to me would be the primary vibration...not separate from the process but part of it. In other words I don't see it as a separate place or thing other than the vibration but the greater (infinite?) part and foundation for the deviation into complex vibrations.
Quote:Quote:<hr>So time must act to fill, to change nothingness into matter, by first creating space from nothingness, and then gradually filling this nothingness with gravity layers, from which varying patterns of gravity interaction occur, from which patterns within patterns can occur, and thus we have things. <hr>I see these actions but once again do not divide them into separate things...
time is just our word for the cycle..
we are this...(if it could be picturedwith a boundary)
<img src="http://members.cox.net/evolutionnow/repeat.gif" style="border:0;"/>
our movement,
as it relates to physical reality,
might look like no-thing-ness at one point
and
look like this if an observer could watch the process from outside...
<img src="http://members.cox.net/evolutionnow/pop.gif" style="border:0;"/>
Some estimate this whole process is 311 trillion years compared to the movement of our planet around the sun.
Re: Time
maybe I said wrong thing for saying "before time" for the word before implies there was a time at that moment
however
if there are Infinite times...
and Infinite of the infinities
then we must surely know that it is possible to go beside the time it is in now and be able to create one "before" the time existed.
word before having a different meaning there.
. Edited by: sloof at: 7/7/05 14:13
however
if there are Infinite times...
and Infinite of the infinities
then we must surely know that it is possible to go beside the time it is in now and be able to create one "before" the time existed.
word before having a different meaning there.
. Edited by: sloof at: 7/7/05 14:13
-
TryingToWakeUp
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:13 pm
Time
I think, time is a characteristic of the delay between Cause and Effect. As such it should be a karmic attribute of the conditioned universe.
Time and Gravity
Could it be that rather than time being gravity, gravity creates time, something like t=gx but I can't figure out what the x is?
everything that we experience as time is created by gravity, so it follows that gravity creates time.
I once did an architectural project on random order, we figured out that time and gravity ordered the random pattern, the result was a spiral shriking inward towards a center, much like our galaxy.
now =the random pattern of our universe x gravity or something like that, I am just fooling around with ideas.
everything that we experience as time is created by gravity, so it follows that gravity creates time.
I once did an architectural project on random order, we figured out that time and gravity ordered the random pattern, the result was a spiral shriking inward towards a center, much like our galaxy.
now =the random pattern of our universe x gravity or something like that, I am just fooling around with ideas.
and why do you feel the need to clasify me to begin with?
But as an answer to your question, no I don't think the universe ends.
Time may be a relative experience, but if I was observing someone who had too many chemicals in their brain, (See above example) I would see that they where the true idiot. Time must be a constant, at least in our gravitational existance. because the TIME it takes for an apple to fall to the ground will not change no matter what drugs we take.
But as an answer to your question, no I don't think the universe ends.
Time may be a relative experience, but if I was observing someone who had too many chemicals in their brain, (See above example) I would see that they where the true idiot. Time must be a constant, at least in our gravitational existance. because the TIME it takes for an apple to fall to the ground will not change no matter what drugs we take.
Apolagies
I apolagize for my crude behavior.
I realize I am among people with the same or greater intellectual abilities than I. With my actions I instead have acted in a hypocrytical way.
Do you believe, when you say that time is a constant, that it runs in a circle?
I realize I am among people with the same or greater intellectual abilities than I. With my actions I instead have acted in a hypocrytical way.
Do you believe, when you say that time is a constant, that it runs in a circle?
-
Steven Coyle
"Sevens"
Infinity is an interesting concept. But what is its practical value? Empirically, one could theoretically travel endlessly, and never arrive at the intended destination. Philosophically, one can learn to cut to the core of an issue, utilizing wisdom like a blade.Shade wrote:Do you believe that the universe ends?
Before i classify you as a total idiot i would like you to answer that question.
--
As karlee points out, time's relationship to gravity can produce a logarithmic spiral -
In her equation:
t = g (x)
'x' could be the variable velocity of the body that was in motion - resulting in a spiral. In the case of our galaxy, the 'focal gravitational force' has been theorized to be the result of a contracting black hole.