| My Final Conclusion
This is something (I think) everybody realizes in real life, but not so easy to notice in science or philosophy, because you are too concentrated on the question, problem or goal, that you don't realize these kind of easy points.
In my voyage through the abstract universe of the concept of time I have arrived with several conclusions, paradoxes, solutions, definitions, etz. Again, I am going to state that there are two main definitions of time: motion and dimension. If your definition has nothing to do with these two, please let me know.
When I happened to solve my main paradox, the one at the start of this thread, my mind had a serious conversation with my brain "ok, you will be as logical and affective as your neurons can say, but you NEED me in this one" and the brain accepted help. After some ours of common sense vs. logical network, they decided that: they should evaluate the situation from a high level view. Again, many hours. Finally, they came to the overall solution, answer or statement if you want to.
I realized that, if there is a reason for which I don't arrive to a
Logico-scientific definition of time, it is because I am in time, I don't know if in the dimension or if in the motion, but I am in it. Time governs my life. It is over me. As well as logic is to life. So, when I think in time, I am moving or traveling in time. I am thinking in time in time. Well, this may seem that it is going to take again to the same paradox as GTP about time in time, but no. I suddenly realized that time is one of those things that HAVE to be evaluated outside of it.
Then I said to my self, "Wait a minute....That is it, an important philosophical law of nature!" And indeed, it is important. I started by righting the law like this: "Nature ahs things that are evaluated from the outside, and things that are evaluated from the inside". But then I realized that I was able of mixing it with my theory of the opposites, and here I got the second try: "Nature is governed by opposites". But then I realized that sometimes, nature shows opposites and sometimes not, so 3rd try: "Nature is frequently governed by opposites". But then, again, I realized that nature not always tells you or show you that there are opposites, and sometimes doesn't define which opposite is actually governing, and it sort of escapes from us. So I stated the 4rth definition: "Nature is frequently governed by opposites which aren't necessarily defined". But then I thought two more things: if there is NO of one of the opposites, you say that it is not an opposite, so, in reality, everything could be opposites, and secondly, the opposites usually attract...but no! Sometimes they repel, so here is the 6th definition: "Nature/reality is governed by opposites which aren't defined individually or in relation to each other".
I may say that I have stopped here. Maybe I did it because I realized one even bigger thing than this law: we never catch nature. We never manage to govern nature. It is one of those things that are over us. Many say that we never end to understand completely nature because we don't search correctly. I'm nobody to judge, but there is something I truly know at my age: Nature is difficult. This is something that may seem easy, but no. You have to understand this every time: when you try to make your TOE, remember, nature is difficult, don't give up. When you try to do philosophy, remember that you will be discussing and discussing and wondering and wondering for ages, because.....NATURE IS DIFICULT. Actually, maybe this one IS the fundamental law of nature. But who knows? (If you believe you do, probably nobody ever told you that you are modest).
May the force be with you........This post I dedicate to Q7, member of toequest who dissapeared and either went crazy or had the true answer to the philadelphia experiment......Guillermo Garrido-Lestache Vidal.  |