Time does exist.

[melanie]

Time does exist------but from what and who? does this thought / concept/ idea manifest?
It manifests from the infinite vast void of timeless consciousness.

Why do I say manifest, well in deep sleep there is no sense of time, so therefore time is a sensed perception/ experience.

This experience is the perception/experience of consciousness.
The perception and the perceived are one not two--- but, what and who is the perceiver ?
It is Consciousness Alone (all one) or (PERCEPTION)
AS perceiver and perceived are ONE as and through (Perception)

The eye(perception) that sees all -- itself cannot see itself-- all there is is perception--by no-one.

What defines a 'thing'? other than a thought of that thing itself.

When my eyes are open there is a sense of an outside --things that are seen--
and an inside --things that are 'thought' including feelings--
All things perceived as outside are defined by once again a 'thought'

When my eyes are closed and I am in complete silence there is no sense of an outside.
Myself & all 'things' seem to dissolve but then reappear in this absolute vastness without boundaries.

'Thoughts' bubble up from who knows where? creating and defining,this world, all of which seem to occur in this 'me'

Thoughts of -things- situations- -experiences- simultaneously appear, dissolve, appear and dissolve again
as of their own accord with no input from this 'me'------this 'me' appears only as another 'thought'

One of many thoughts appearing and disappearing without a trace in this timeless reality appearing as the one without a second---- NOW!!

Thoughts themselves are nothing more than images, mirages, like ourselves that bubble up from the vast deep well of consciousness,
lingers for a while & then dissolve back into which they came leaving not a trace.

Time is just a consideration that something will persist.
But to observe a persistence you need to create space first between you -your point of view- and the "thing" which automatically gives you a Dimension.
Otherwise you would be that "thing"-- that by the way could be just a 'point' with no form whatsoever.
When you get a point to look at, you instantly get space or a dimension and of course a distance
--when you get this you are creating TIME as well.
Without space there is no object---Without object there is no space.
So unless there are things to relate, like Albert Einstein thought, then there is no time.

Relativity is an illusion.....The Real is timeless.


All there is-- IS Consciousness---appearing as dreamscape--through and as (Imagination)

[ggullet]

(continued ...)

And a couple more interesting considerations:

If perceptions occur within a physical brain then when someone sees someone else, they're not physically seeing them but instead seeing what they believe to be their physical representation.

And another one: If the universe was predetermined over x billion years and our actions arise from physical laws, then similarly it could be said that the physical universe was predetermined x billion years ago to allow you to act as you do now. If you can lift you hand when you want and natural laws supposedly determined this, then we could say that the universe was created/designed x billion years ago to allow you to do that. (I'm just trying to point out the problem with the physical descriptions)

On the other hand, just like energy and matter, if there's a dual description for consciousness and matter then we run into problems again trying to find a link that connects them - but there is no specific point in the pathway of information where things become physical or not. There's just the known and unknown, in my opinion, and the things that are known reflect things about yourself (yes, I'm referring to myself also) and the unknown is effectively a singular thing - multiple unknowns are just how its seen over time, but in the end it's a flow of energy that might as well be from a singular source (and you can see this same view mirrored in many views throughout history). What is it? By definition, I don't know

Anyway, that's the picture I've come to after spending a lot of time trying to piece things together and though people might extend the view, it's hard to imagine how you could bridge the gap and see the whole picture without a figurative leap of faith involved. I'm certain there are people that claim to have it figured out, but I'll probably remain a skeptic, though it's interesting to at least be able to understand better what things they're referring to and see some common landmarks that most everyone appears to share, even if the words used to describe them are different.

define interesting

[melanie]

I personally don't understand how it works because I am not as intelligent as the people that think it was invented to understand that they are intelligent, are.

Does that sound right?

Maybe some time inventor believers can make that sentence more legible coz I am sure you know what I mean since your so smart and all.

Maybe so many of us have it the wrong way 'round?

While it seems that Presence comes and goes, maybe it's more accurate to say that it's the "me" that comes and goes?

Presence is ever, and unchanging.
And when IT seems to "come" it's actually an occasion when the "me" is seen to be "gone"... and un-real.

When we are "aware" of Presence... and then not... we think Presence is doing all the moving about.... coming and going.

Then "we" want to know how to get IT back.

And "we" want to chase IT so "we" can grab IT again.

But Presence hasn't ever come or gone anywhere at all.

And chasing IT, or longing for IT, is useless.

It's just the silly old "me" that thinks it has found and lost something that can't possibly be lost or found.

And all along, it's just a matter of seeing IT for what it really is.. the right way 'round'

I age, that takes time.
I grow and age when I sleep, that takes time.
I eat which makes me grow and age and sleep, that takes time.
I have babies, which makes me grow and age and sleep and eat and that takes time.
I sit and drink coffee and type on the computer and that takes time, I might even be putting some people to sleep while I do this so they will grow and age and that takes time.

I am not saying time is endless, obviously it is. FOR EVERYONE, it's eternal because it's not invented or made up, it exists in most parts of life and rocks don't need or have time. Everything takes time, whether we understand it or not doesn't make us smarter than a box of rox.

So if you are a rock, time doesn't exist for you. But if you are an intelligent rock, you can use "time" to pretend like you are a smart rock.

So time exists as we don't know how it does, but it does, always has and always will, differently since it's always moving but it takes a very long time to move.

Yup Austin, it's been a slow summer in existence.

PS. I think time is a lot longer than what everyone thinks, I think these measurement restrictions put on it by these self proclaimed smart a$$es make it go faster than what reality really is. So they are aging everyone and making them die faster than what should really be happening.

There exist only timeless presence.
( '' Presence cannot come or go as it is everywhere, every-when, and it is the knower of all comings and goings.
The ‘me’ that seems to experience Presence is but an appearance in, to, and of this Presence;
like a mirage, this 'me' appears but it has no independent or real existence. '' )


And when the "me" glimpses the reality of it's non-existence, it thinks it has had an "experience"

What is it that comes and goes?

Any 'person' including 'me'... every 'me' is a 'thing' - an 'object'.

Whereas 'I' am the ultimate subject... though I cannot say who or what or when or where or why or how I am.

Only 'that I am'

And even this 'thatness' is indefinable... except to say it is this very seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling and knowing.

_____


The nature of phenomena is nondual,
but each one, in its own state,
is beyond the limits of the mind.
There is no concept that can define
the condition of "what is"
but vision nevertheless manifests:
all is good.

From; "Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State" by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
_____

KYE HO! Wonderful!
You may say "existence," but you can't grasp it!
You may say "non-existence" but many things appear!
It is beyond the sky of "existence" and "non-existence" --
I know it but cannot point to it!

Tantric Buddhist Women's Song (8th - 11th c.)

[sillysally]

The physical self is a focal point of information, but the consciousness behind this is not necessarily anything physical.

Our perception of reality with our eyes is in 3-d, it is probably different when the eyes and conscious are separate. Maybe that's why some questions can't ever be answered.

[sillysally]

(continued ...)

And a couple more interesting considerations:

If perceptions occur within a physical brain then when someone sees someone else, they're not physically seeing them but instead seeing what they believe to be their physical representation.

I think I look totally different in the mirror and in pictures. In the mirror I am used to seeing myself a certain way but when I see the pictures, I don't believe it.

And another one: If the universe was predetermined over x billion years and our actions arise from physical laws, then similarly it could be said that the physical universe was predetermined x billion years ago to allow you to act as you do now. If you can lift you hand when you want and natural laws supposedly determined this, then we could say that the universe was created/designed x billion years ago to allow you to do that. (I'm just trying to point out the problem with the physical descriptions)

It has to be re-occuring otherwise it wouldn't be stable. Thats why I say it's circular. In order for something to happen in reality, we think of it first. But I don't believe there is any one entity behind it, and if there is an entity it's a collective of every mind since every person's perception and reality is different.

On the other hand, just like energy and matter, if there's a dual description for consciousness and matter then we run into problems again trying to find a link that connects them - but there is no specific point in the pathway of information where things become physical or not. There's just the known and unknown, in my opinion, and the things that are known reflect things about yourself (yes, I'm referring to myself also) and the unknown is effectively a singular thing - multiple unknowns are just how its seen over time, but in the end it's a flow of energy that might as well be from a singular source (and you can see this same view mirrored in many views throughout history). What is it? By definition, I don't know

All that collective perception is confined to one area. That's why it can be perceived as singular because it's a whole on that scope. People like MJA go around saying they are "one" with everything and everyone. They are just a little confused and I think that's a little disgusting too, I certainly don't consider myself to be one with Jeffrey Domer. So there are either some defective aspects to the whole energy thing or people like JD are normal.

Anyway, that's the picture I've come to after spending a lot of time trying to piece things together and though people might extend the view, it's hard to imagine how you could bridge the gap and see the whole picture without a figurative leap of faith involved. I'm certain there are people that claim to have it figured out, but I'll probably remain a skeptic, though it's interesting to at least be able to understand better what things they're referring to and see some common landmarks that most everyone appears to share, even if the words used to describe them are different.

I don't think we should blame the unknown on faith, I think our brains are underdeveloped in this environment. I mean too squashed together with gravity.

[melanie]

People like MJA go around saying they are "one" with everything and everyone.
They are just a little confused and I think that's a little disgusting too,
I certainly don't consider myself to be one with Jeffrey Domer.

If a person understands that words are linked to concepts, concepts linked to meaning,
and is dealing directly in his own mind with the meaning, and not the words or concepts,
then he can think and express himself with infallible and complete accuracy.

That doesn't mean others will understand him.

[sillysally]

If a person understands that words are linked to concepts, concepts linked to meaning,
and is dealing directly in his own mind with the meaning, and not the words or concepts,
then he can think and express himself with infallible and complete accuracy.

That doesn't mean others will understand him.

Exactly, which means we aren't one.

[SteveA]

I think I look totally different in the mirror and in pictures. In the mirror I am used to seeing myself a certain way but when I see the pictures, I don't believe it.

Compare a picture of yourself with yourself in a mirror, side by side. You'll notice that the images are swapped left and right.

In the case of the mirror, forward and backward are swapped and in the case of the picture, it depends on which way the camera was rotated - normally it's a left-right inversion instead of forward-backward, but someone could take a picture hanging upside down and swap left and right - none of them show the first person perspective.

It has to be re-occuring otherwise it wouldn't be stable. Thats why I say it's circular.

That's a good analogy, though as you indicated also, it grows and isn't perfectly circular (I think they call that "time like loops" in physics).

From my perspective, the things we know of with certainty end up being similar to objects constructed from loops of memory in time (it takes some time to learn the properties of something but then the known object is constructed and it exists as an unchanging thing), but experiences in time never repeat precisely and yet they're known relative to other experiences (if you had a conscious sensation that was entirely unique and had no relationship to anything you've physically experienced, then it wouldn't exist as any specific thing in space because it would not have an association (yet) with anything physical).

So it seems most likely that memory is like a core that grows and as new energy/information accumulates into it, they're experienced similar to shockwaves travelling through this structure of memory to form associations, so experiences in the current moment could be seen similar to the growing boundary of a crystal, or the interface between chaos and order or the Sun shining on a planet of interconnections or the vibrations along a growing string etc.

[everymansmedium]

Yes, time exists just like a rainbow of colors and vanilla. You can't prove they exist unless someone can already see them and you couldn't even try to begin or end a proof unless you already had time to do so.

Time isn't something that's imposed upon the universe by physical things. If you had no sense of time, those physical changes could not be seen to happen.

So it takes an innate sense of or ability to interact with/in time in order to recognize it.

It's just tough for someone who wants to explore the universe and figure out how things work to stomach the fact that at its foundation, it might as well be built on magic and even if every computation in the universe was performed precisely and a complete set of natural laws could be derived, possibly arising just from an ability to think, it doesn't appear it will explain why ... and maybe that's ultimately for the best.

Hi Steve:

The idea of magic is relative to the level of understanding. If we were to show a tv set to someone from the 18th century it would no doubt be considered magic.

What exactly do we experience with our consciousness?
( TIME.)
What is the one thing that conciousness can not exist without?
( TIME. )
Consider what if:
TIME, CONCIOUSNESS and CREATION are all one thing.
Then you have the TOE!

Because it even explains the observer effect in QP and QM.

What is the observer?
Consciousness.
What is necessary to the Consciousness?
Time.
What then is the action?
Continious dynamic creation as in the growing block universe.

TIME/CONSCIOUSNESS/CREATION = TOE.

John EMM

[SteveA]

... But I don't believe there is any one entity behind it, and if there is an entity it's a collective of every mind since every person's perception and reality is different.

Yes, I tend to agree though there's a common structure of logic that appears likely the cause of the appearance of physical laws and the forms that persist over time, but the specifics of each, even if they followed such laws perfectly doesn't appear to have an explaination.

As another analogy, take the internet (in the past people might have referred to an army of angels or the numerical world of form and numbers of Plato or whatever) - there are certain rules by which a communication must be formatted or it won't end being seen by someone else. These rules can't be arbitrary, or even if they were initially selected in an arbitrary manner then they must remain unchanged if people are to be able to continue to bi-directionally communicate via. the internet.

So there are various rules by which information is at least subjectively interpreted - a bat expects its own signature when using sonar to navigate, if another bat used the same signature "voice" or if a cave had unusual echoes this could cause a confusion and the same is true for spoken languages or communicating via. physical motions etc.

Anyway, these rules are stationary and don't change and they reflect, in many ways, internal qualities (the internet communicates via it's own set of rules, as do bats and people speaking various languages or physical objects interacting in space etc.). There is a common core to all these though that simply describes the manners in which a bi-directional communication can occur, if they're all to share the same objective/external universe, but though this common framework exists and everything within an objective reality effectively "inherits" some part of it, the specifics of each don't appear to be determined by it and each is unique in some manner and from this perspective has a component independent of it that could be considered to be creative/energetic.

But recognize still that as a part of this, you yourself possess such a subjective perspective that's unique and it could be said that from this unique perspective you're determine the relative view of what the surrounding landscape appears to be, including where/what/how/when etc. other things appear in relationship to you. So it could be said, if you don't possess any other perspective to observe things from, that it's all "one" in the sense that there exists nothing outside these experiences and knowledge etc.

But as the flip side of this, I don't see how it can truly all be "one" beyond this because the unknowns beyond it have not yet been experienced - and though I enjoy considering myself creative, it appears a paradox to say that I can determine what I will become or what I will learn. Maybe intuition and "gut feelings" give some clues but truly there appears a vast and incomprehensible unknown "out there" that I can't in any verifiable manner include as part of "me" and most everything I've experienced and know is part of a growth that could likely have no bounds, but I guess in some ways you could say that the unknowns are just as much a part of not knowing specifically "where you are" within all of it as much as not knowing "what lies out there" as the two views are very similar.

If we have free will, then it would appear that at least some control over "where you are" within it should exist, but in that case the unknowns become the consequences of ones actions. In any case there's just always something else that isn't anything specific and so I can't consider it to all be the same thing without everything becoming unknown (or at least possessing an element of uncertainty), and though really might be a chance that if you drop an apple a trillion times, one time it won't fall (probably the time you can no longer drop it after that ), the dropping and the falling could be something that might ultimately be tied together as something mirroring some properties of oneself, the time it doesn't fall comes from somewhere else and I figuratively can't tell you when the apple won't fall, nor predict why except that after the fact there's a chance to go back and find how it was possible, but I'm just analogizing here and it could be the first time someone looked up and saw a comet and all the new experiences and feelings and the subsequent knowledge that might grow from this experience and then it might be looked at after that the fact that comets were always a part of you or you always had the capability of experiencing them, but to look to the future and the unknowns and say those are also part of you makes "you" an unknown except for the fact that all these are consciously experienced and so that part of "you" remains in the future, but all the unknown specifics over time would not be a part of this "you" (and I'm of course referring to "me" as well).

So there could be a timeless awareness that unites everything that defines oneself, but it's not part of the unknown specifics that exist at any moment, that's time and it's real, it's creative and energetic and it has no specific form and it's also unknown that can't be shown to exist in any specific form (it may be the cumulative influences everyone has - every decision or action someone makes has effects that propagate through everything else over time and it appears as "noise" to everything else).

All that collective perception is confined to one area. That's why it can be perceived as singular because it's a whole on that scope.

Agreed.

...I don't think we should blame the unknown on faith, I think our brains are underdeveloped in this environment. I mean too squashed together with gravity.

That could very well be it, though I'd hazard a guess even unsquashed brains can't "see it all" either, but there may be other forms of experiences and thought that could appear irrational to me now yet be perfectly clear within that framework - once again, I have no idea and that's just speculation though I've experienced mind bending warps in perspective before and probably not for the last time (the poor brain's gonna get frazzled! )

Thankfully, in the meantime, if someone builds an electronic circuit or drops an apple or grabs a handful of sand, it appears these don't randomly vanish or morph into other things, so I might be a kid playing in a sand box wondering where the sand came from and how it will stick around, but I can still dry mudpies in the sun try to build a sandcastle, so I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth and if I'm part of the flow of the energy food chain and can't ultimately determine where it goes I can at least mess with what I've got so far and it may forever be tomorrow that I've finally got the pieces put together.