It seams I live my life in the past. The event occurs and is gone. By the time I experience it, it's the past.
The only time I experienced the Here & Now is when I tranced myself, and that experience was No Space, No Time, No Motion, only awareness of the I AM.
I believe both you and Fredrick have a pyramid structure to your theories. I believe I saw yours Austin, but if you could repost it here may prove beneficial.
Also do you have a diagram of your pyramid Fredrick? If not maybe Austin could help you illustrate it.
Austin and I collaborated on the pyramidal delivery. And I can say, a wonderful delivery again for your take on time, Austin. I could frame this one, and hang it above my fire place.
Some people may say it is contrived, but I see the same pyramidal positioning in time as in space. With focusing on time first, a visualization becomes noticeable that is very spatial.
We all have our own experience of time, incomparable to some extend. Within our own frame of experiences we also notice differences, just like these differences exist between people. Einstein's remark is of course famous that talking to a beautiful young lady for an hour may seem like five minutes, while having a conversation with a person not much liked of five minutes may seem like an hour. But the same goes for young people and old people; we do not all perceive reality the same way in time.
I believe time in general is a one-way street, though specific instances can occur when time of the future touches the time of the past. The full picture would be a stream of time, going in one direction, with two banks of slow moving currents on either side, and a fast moving deep(er) current in the middle. Sometimes, the slow moving eddies next to each other mix up. And water that is normally moving forward moves backward in these eddies. The eddies can capture and mix forward and backward moving water, allowing some people to have experiences of future events (I have had a few of these experiences, nothing world-shattering).
Anything moving towards the middle of the river moves clearly in one direction: downstream. Depending on which side the energy of time moves towards the middle the bend is either to the right or to the left. Speed differs, depending on where we are in the stream, but moving backward never occurs in the fast moving parts of the river. We can philosophy here on an entire stream meandering through time, making overall time appearing to not move in any particular direction sometimes, but I hope I have captured the physics of time in this picture. I will elaborate the picture of a river of time towards a picture of matter now.
The directions experienced in the stream are the same directions experienced by us on our physical globe. The eddies on the side of the stream are like the North and the South pole. The strongest movements on our planet are experienced (most likely unknowingly) by the people at the equator — they move on the back of our planet the fastest (I am talking about speed here, not gravity). At the poles we do not move forward with the movement of our planet's spin, we only turn along on the axis. Naturally, the earth's trip around the sun is experienced here at the poles the same way as the entire planet is moving around the sun, but the earth's rotation in a day is experienced here only like an eddie in a stream.
The earth's trip within our universe is actually a whole lot more like a river than we normally realize, because starting on January 1, 2007, our planet was in a totally different location than it will be on January 1, 2008. The line in our universe from these two dates, portraying the earth's path may seem to us almost like a straight line. Not only did we move around the sun once (a circle), but the movement of our solar system needs to be taken into consideration as well as part of our Milky Way (the circle is actually a spiral). Also, the movement away by our Milky Way from point X, the starting point of our galaxy's beginning in the universe, shows a more complete passage through time (the spiral is actually extremely stretched). It may not be the straightest of lines, but it is nevertheless a line 'straight' away from that point of materialization.
Matter as we know it was formed in this movement away from the 'center.' Just like a river, it has four positions and a single direction. Energy was captured in form, in a process in which creation helped build creation, meaning a surrounding-in-creation influenced the creation of the surrounding. A specific position creates an opposition, because the whole needs expression and is not based on just the structure in which some parts experience recreating the whole.
A stream of energy portrays the underlying pattern of our materialized universe. Once the matter was in place, it remained in place due both to oppositional and collaborative forces. The stream of energy exists both in matter and in time.
I appreciate your comments.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
In your words I read that you consider science to be whole unlike anything else. Do I read that correctly in your words?
Yes. Any and all reality is science, IMO.
Regards,
Lloyd
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
That is exactly the answer I expected. I want to honor you in your view, but I'd also like to say that my overall view states that science is limited, just like anything else. For anything declared, including scientific information, the specific information makes sense only after accepting the premises.
Naturally, we all know that for anything to be taken seriously in science it either needs to be repeatable or it is proffered as a theory (on overall perspectives of repeatable information). The universe, though only created once, contains many aspects we can discover (and have discovered) and as such we can discuss the universe.
Another aspect of science of interest in this discussion is that science contains more than one conflict. Some parts don't like other parts. Some definitions conflict with other definitions. Though capturing many aspects of our reality, science itself shows some of the characteristics of our reality itself.
My question to you, Lloyd, is then how you view your reply that any and all reality is science. I would say (in my words) that that is a religious statement. Is that why you write "IMO?" Can you provide a statement about science that is based on more solid ground? Can you deliver a view about science that is covered by science itself, one that still honors your words that any and all reality is science?
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
A stream of energy portrays the underlying pattern of our materialized universe. Once the matter was in place, it remained in place due both to oppositional and collaborative forces. The stream of energy exists both in matter and in time.
I appreciate your comments.[/quote]
Hi Fredrick;
I'm sorry for the delay in response but I was waiting for the illustration of your time theory.
I think I agree with most of what you are saying except for energy being in time.
That requires a little additional explanation, for me to understand. I like your river analogy, but a river is real and therefore does have energy in it's movement. Time I view as more conceptual in nature than real.
As a side comment, I would recommend anyone interested in the fascinating subject of time, and especially why we see it flow from only the past to the future, to have a read of the book entitled "The River of Time" by Igor Novikov.
I agree with ProfPat. Time is relevant only with motion..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat
A stream of energy portrays the underlying pattern of our materialized universe. Once the matter was in place, it remained in place due both to oppositional and collaborative forces. The stream of energy exists both in matter and in time.
I appreciate your comments.
Hi Fredrick;
I'm sorry for the delay in response but I was waiting for the illustration of your time theory.
I think I agree with most of what you are saying except for energy being in time.
That requires a little additional explanation, for me to understand. I like your river analogy, but a river is real and therefore does have energy in it's movement. Time I view as more conceptual in nature than real.
Hi Lloyd, My question to you, Lloyd, is then how you view your reply that any and all reality is science. I would say (in my words) that that is a religious statement. Is that why you write "IMO?" Can you provide a statement about science that is based on more solid ground? Can you deliver a view about science that is covered by science itself, one that still honors your words that any and all reality is science?
Hi Fredrick, and as to your question, science, what is it? To start with, all we can "know" is science. All else is belief and faith. Though science must be based on the discovered laws of nature, and the experiments agreeing with these laws, all scientists know that science is, at the same time, incomplete. It is the completeness we work toward. We use theory as a framework, to set our laws and experiments to. When the laws and experiments, overwhelmingly agree with the theories, which many do not, and many do, we accept the plausibility of facts, based on the overwhelming probabilities of the evidences. In order for theory to be accepted as factual, it must possess the overwhelming symmetry of the laws and experiments. Though total knowledge may have a considerable distance to go, to achieve a total theory of everything, I see no other way possible, expecially with faith and belief, as false methods, to accomplish such a feat. We must "know" the results of laws and experiments are sound, to proceed further toward the final theory of everything. Personally, I use the highest mathematical probability, of the highest mathematical possibility, to show the greatest possible outcome, in accordance with the laws and experiments, in agreement with the knowledge book of recorded ideas. The book is just the record of the sound scientific knowledge base, thus far recorded by all of humanity. At the same time, I try to edit out what I do not consider sound scientific knowledge, that has crept into the book of recorded knowledge. This is quite a feat. I have no way to advise anyone else, how to do this, as it has taken me a lifetime of study, mainly in three subject areas, philosophy, physics and economics, to achieve, what I consider a cummensurate level of proficiency, to found my own thinking. I can only advise others toward a well rounded inter-disciplinary attack of the problems of learning, as the best possible root.
Mathematics has many weaknesses, but when supplemented with the other inter-disciplinary fields of study, fills many of the weak holes. Many do not realize how much cross-over of mathematical discipline, exists between the varried studies. Physics helped me to solve many economic theory and fact problems, as well as did philosophy and economics help me to solve many physics problems. I do not think any one study is capable of ferriting out the complexities involved, unless supplemented by these other studies. When I mention philosophy, within that framework, I include math and psychology, as they are very important subjects of the overall dynamics of sound fundamental thought.
As far as your point about science being religious, that is quite unfounded. Religion is always faith and belief based. Science is always law and experiment based. All truly fundamental thought must be law and experiment based, or it's faith and belief religious. Even though science uses theory, which is more or less imagination, in the end, such imagination must match the facts of the entire symmetry of the immutable laws of nature, and man's experiments of, which must scientifically match these immutable laws of nature. Nature is the king, and we only try to understand her. IMO, science is the only method to such complete understanding, as the mind at base, is just a scientific analyser, of the facts___All else is faith and belief.
The spirit/psychology/whatever is the scientific motion of the fundamental substance, whatever that may be found to be, as all absolutely must come from this motion/substance___No matter what... There is no reality, outside of reality. The laws of the highest probability, of the highest possibility, prevent such nonsense. Profound scientific thinking is deep enough to "know", not believe...
Regards,
Lloyd
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
I agree with ProfPat. Time is relevant only with motion..
Well, Dipayankar,
It appeared that you were giving me an answer that disagreed with what I am saying, but you may actually be the one giving Profpat the answer he is asking me to give him.
Time is connected to energy, but time can only exist if energy is floating. If energy is not floating there is no time perspective. We can even wonder if there could be energy if it wasn't floating.
Thanks for your reply. Does this satisfy you, Profpat?
P.S. Apologies for not delivering any visuals, but that really is the realm of Austin. I can do some simple stuff in Illustrator, but that is basic stuff, as in really basic, nothing anything close to as great as Austin can create.
P.P.S. Time is not conceptual, it is real. In my delivery I do question the amount of time that is real. Is it just a fraction of a second, repeated many times over into infinity, or is time a larger part of a much greater magnitude that we can actually experience, as in holding it in our hands? That I cannot tell, and according to me no one can tell that into great detail. Time simply is angular energy, like the passage of energy through the tip of a pyramid. And don't take this literally, because I mean to say angular as in touching the moment and then it is gone.
Our quadrant's energy in this much larger universe is angular, can only be angular. Yesterday and today, we are moving away from the beginning of our universe in similar fashion, in a similar direction. There is a point X from which our energy has appeared (not necessarily identical to the time of the Big Bang). The river of time away from the beginning is the same as the river of energy moving away from the beginning. Both are intertwined, though each has its own characteristics.
And that is all I am trying to say, Profpat. Time and space are built according to the same perspective of (op)positions. Connected and disconnected — intertwined.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
...all scientists know that science is, at the same time, incomplete. It is the completeness we work toward. We use theory as a framework, to set our laws and experiments to. When the laws and experiments, overwhelmingly agree with the theories, which many do not, and many do, we accept the plausibility of facts, based on the overwhelming probabilities of the evidences. In order for theory to be accepted as factual, it must possess the overwhelming symmetry of the laws and experiments. Though total knowledge may have a considerable distance to go, to achieve a total theory of everything, I see no other way possible, expecially with faith and belief, as false methods, to accomplish such a feat. We must "know" the results of laws and experiments are sound, to proceed further toward the final theory of everything. Personally, I use the highest mathematical probability, of the highest mathematical possibility, to show the greatest possible outcome, in accordance with the laws and experiments, in agreement with the knowledge book of recorded ideas.
As far as your point about science being religious, that is quite unfounded. Religion is always faith and belief based. Science is always law and experiment based.
Thank you, Lloyd, for a profound view, both sane and comprehensive. There are truly only a few points I'd like to dig out with you, but first I must make it clear to you how much I appreciate your words here. While I fully appreciate ToeQuest for being a real platform for any inquisitive mind, I am very glad you are around forcing us to see the importance of science in coming to a widely accepted theory of everything.
I quoted you in two places. The first to show how much I agree with you, and in a way, the first is also telling in your words what I am trying to say: science is incomplete. We both recognize it is incomplete, but we differ in saying whether it is forever or whether it is just for now.
And that's the point where I claim you to use religion. You expect science to come up with an answer one day that will satisfy you in your thinking of today. In the mean time, I claim to bring the mathematical evidence that you should use scientific information to get a clear look in the mirror of science of today, and see that the basics of science automatically contains a limitation. We do agree that a completed framework is possible (as in delivering a TOE), but a TOE is only possible according to me that incorporates limitation (as in true unification of forces is not possible without mentioning separation as the fundamental aspect of forces).
My work does not take a single ounce away from science, but I do place it in the same framework as anything else — it is only correct within its own framework, and not in the entire framework. The scientific parts that disagree with each other, the definitions that contradict each other, are evidence ('proof' if you allow me to use this word) that science is not only fundamentally limited, but that it is subjected on a fundamental level to the flaws of the human mind.
I understand that battling about the basics of mathematics is far less interesting than talking about infinity, hot and cold fusion, and a multiplex of universes, but if the basics are not all-encompassing in scope, if they are flawed in any respect, then the answers we find are automatically off.
We agree science is limited one way or another, but my question to you is if you are willing to look at the basics of science, willing to discuss an eternal scientific limitation? It doesn't mean science can't bring truths and evidence, but it involves science as only capable of bringing evidence of the result, and not of the real thing itself.
The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
Linear Mode
