My Time Paradox - Page 4

Guille · **My Final Conclusion -** 06-12-2005, 05:49 AM

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.

AntonioLao · 06-12-2005, 03:30 PM

Mathematically speaking,

$\int^{T+t}_{T} f(t) dt = \int^{t}_0 f(t) dt$

and philosophically speaking,

$life = \int^{death}_{birth} Love dt$

Guille · 06-12-2005, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Mathematically speaking,

$\int^{T+t}_{T} f(t) dt = \int^{t}_0 f(t) dt$

and philosophically speaking,

$life = \int^{death}_{birth} Love dt$

Sorry Antonio: mathematics is not valid in philosophy (logic operations yes). What is the meaning of the mathematical time equation?

AntonioLao · 06-12-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUILLE

What is the meaning of the mathematical time equation?

we live in the interval between the beginning and end of two identical periods that is we live between 0 and $\infty$ of time.

~~subversion~~ · **definition of time -** 06-12-2005, 06:48 PM

good thread Guille, lot's of hard thinking. I have to ask you though, why the universe is not a perfect definition of time?

ps. good point that Nature is difficult. I believe we can though, no, we are DESTINED to govern it. TOE will be the final vanquishing of man over nature! Not sure if that is morally substantiated, but what is morality anyway?

please tell me though if my definition of time is scientifically satisfactory.
peace

Guille · 06-13-2005, 03:07 AM

The only "goal" of our existence, which isn't the goal of our existence, but the goal we have set to our existence, is achieving perfection. This of coruse, is impossible, for the fact that perfection doesn't exist and that it is not natural. Nature is always im-perfect. We are in our infinite road. Acheiving power and superiority is one of the parts of achieving perfection. At least this is what we think. That is why the Earth is not a single nation: we want superiority. Either over Swahili people, or whatever, but we need it to be satisfactured. Science is as self-centered as economics, because it is to get us over. Better. In science's and philosophy's case, over nature. We say it is to understand, but this is only the beginign. We need to udnerstand nature, because once that is doen, we can get our engineers to work, and have technological advance. Technology is the getting better of us. There is technology of technology, which is getting better at getting better of us. Time is one of the things we would like to be over, to control, but we still can't, because we don't completely understand it.

These are very very profound thoughts.

Guille · **The universe is inside -** 06-13-2005, 03:13 AM

The universe is inside time. As well as us. Actually, this is not good enough, because some will say time is inside the universe. The fabric of the universe is space and time. This means that EVERY place in the univer has time. So, the universe observes time from a place which is absolutelly true, real, reality, truth, objective. The unvierse does know what is time. But not we. True, we observe the universe, and try to understand it. But our interpretations of the interpretations of the universe about time, aren't from a true point of view like the unvierse's, because we look at universe from somewhere, thus, we have misinterpret. So the unvierse does not tell us the truth of time. Again, I am immerse in a world of wonder and confusion, and the only way to leave it is ending in paradox, or in incertainity, if not, I will still here for ever and ever again.

Guille · 07:50 AM

I like to think on morality, ethics, logics....As those things which are completely relative. There is no completely correct one, but there is no completely wrong one. My morality is correct when applied to me, not to you. Your morality is correct applied to you, not to my.

What is your definition of time?

Masa Hiryuu · **Time... -** 06-13-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by <<>>

The universe is inside time. As well as us. Actually, this is not good enough, because some will say time is inside the universe. The fabric of the universe is space and time. This means that EVERY place in the univer has time. So, the universe observes time from a place which is absolutelly true, real, reality, truth, objective. The unvierse does know what is time. But not we. True, we observe the universe, and try to understand it. But our interpretations of the interpretations of the universe about time, aren't from a true point of view like the unvierse's, because we look at universe from somewhere, thus, we have misinterpret. So the unvierse does not tell us the truth of time. Again, I am immerse in a world of wonder and confusion, and the only way to leave it is ending in paradox, or in incertainity, if not, I will still here for ever and ever again.

very good observation here guille

yes time from an observer will always be skewed because it is being observed and thus must be interpreted and interpretation is subjective and varies from observer to observer

like I said in my previous posts time is a property of interaction between entities, on a multiverse level this still holds true and thus like you said the universe can be seen to exist within time yet like you said this is also not true because time is a seprate entity that does not encompass all universes and is not required for a universe (not the case with OUR universe) to function because not all universes will have observing entities.

Time can be linked to dimensions and motion but only in the fact that it exists because of observing of interactions between enteties within these dimensions (transfer of information) and is also not required in order for them to function.

Guille · 06-20-2005, 06:32 AM

Is there time out of the universe?

In my opinion, if you think there is space out of the universe then you must agree that there is time also. And vice versa. Also, for there to be time and space out of the universe, there must be objects in this space-time. Of course, the universe would be one. Now, would this space-time be curved by gravity? toe universe's mass?