Time

L

LephtShew

Registered Senior Member
Time is only relative on an Earthly level.

This is the idea that though we exist at a specific "time" on earth, all earthly times are accessable at the same time.

I'll explain that better

Imagine this:

Past..........| |
..................| |
Present......| |
..................| |
Future.......| |

the line on the right represents the subconcious level that we are alive in. It exists on all levels (Past present and future)... so through use of this subconcious or perhaps for some the third eye or whatever psychic ability, we gain our knowledge based on the fact that it all truly exists on the same plane. Remove light from our world, and you would remove time. It exists based on physical movement, yes? Without physical movement or visual evidence, we cannot claim that time exists since we would not be able to witness it. Then again i suppose our senses would have to be removed. Example:
We exist as human beings.
We carry none of the 5 (or 6 or 7, however many you believe there are) senses
Do we still exist?
We would be forced to say we do, we still have thought but i argue that time would not exist.
 
Last edited:
_____________________________________
It exists based on physical movement, yes? _____________________________________

Yes, time to me is a measure of how things move through space.

_________________________________________________
Without physical movement or visual evidence, we cannot claim that time exists since we would not be able to witness it. Then again i suppose our senses would have to be removed.
_________________________________________________
Yep. Time is relative. It is made up by us relative to other things. Without other things, we cannot experinence time, ie time does not exist.
 
We carry none of the 5 (or 6 or 7, however many you believe there are) senses
Do we still exist?

senses don't determine if a person exists. A rock has no senses yet it is real. The question isn't if the person exists, but rather if it's alive?
 
Without the 5 senses the person would indeed still be alive. They would still be a breathing, functioning human being, even if his presence exclude these senses.
 
The person would still be alive but wouldn't be able to experience anything. This is like not existing.
 
Hevene said:
The person would still be alive but wouldn't be able to experience anything. This is like not existing.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it be existing. You're there, you're effecting every other living thing in existinance. To you it may seem like nothin more than a blackness and night overlapping you, but to other living things you are there and you are existing.
 
i didnt mean to make an argument out of this, i just wanted some insight...
I understand what Votorx is saying...
We do still exist... i suppose i meant it as a rhetorical question

I was just trying to help myself visualize (irony), a space or state of being without time.
 
In order for you to exist and to experience who you are, you need to experience the opposite of who you are. If there is no way to detect that thing that is not you, how long would you be able to exist in your own imagination.
Here is the situation:
You are in a white empty room, everything is white, there is nothing but whiteness. You are suspended in air as if attached to the ceiling by a invisible string. How long would you experinece you? Not very long. Now suddenly, there is a small black dot on the wall, and at the moment, you would suddenly know you are here, and the dot is there, you are able to experinence you as here and there. And if there is a bigger black dot, you will be able to experience bigness and smalless. This applies to everything. Without your senses, you cannot detect anything other than you, therefore cannot experience you since all experience are relative.
 
also very true...
I think i was thinking you'd "feel" yourself breathing, but you wouldnt... so no you wouldnt exist... sorry about that
 
Your mind would keep you in existence. The presence of the whiteness, or blackness will also keep you in existence. While you wouldn't be able to feel, touch, see, smell or taste anything. You will still be able to think. And just thinking will allow you to know that you exist.

Now you are moving onto detecting things around you. Originally this was a discussion on being alive and existing. No matter what, even without your senses you still exist.
 
If you restrict existance as being physical. But to me, existance is much bigger than that.
 
Hevene said:
If you restrict existance as being physical. But to me, existance is much bigger than that.
Click to expand...

I do not restrict existance as just being physical but mental, physical and emotinal. But what do you think existance is?
 
Your brain needs input from your senses to interpret things, without the senses, your brain wouldn't work. Therefore, there would be no mental existance.
To me, existance is being able to choose and be who I want to be, be able to experience whatever I chooose to experience. Without our senses, these just cannot be done.
 
So what you're trying to say is inanimate objects are non existence. They don't follow anything in your definition of existence therefore they must not exist right?

You're brain does not need the senses to function. If you cut off someone nose, ears, blinded them, dystroyed every nerve in their body, and ripped out their tongue, you will still be able to THINK. Regardless of what senses are missing your mental abilities will not cease.
 
You do have a point here. What I was saying was that existance with all the senses would allow me to do the things I wanted to do. Without the senses, existance would be less fullfilling and it's like non-existance to me.
I don't think there is any inanimate objects. Some may seem to be inanimate on the surface, but all things are made of atoms and subatomical particles which moves all the time. Things such as rocks, they do exist, but they don't have a consiousness, they do not have as much power over the ways which they choose to exist, but simply accepting our choices that allows us to experience who we are.
 
Well if you put it that way then yes existance would be alot less furfilling. Infact suicide would seem like a reasonable solution to such suffering. But never less they still exist. Now the question is, without your senses is it even worth existing?
 
Let me apply some Buddhist logic.

Everything that you experience at this moment is a subjective perception. It's not real, it's simply a projection of the ego, the self, all that you are all that you think all that you feel all that you see. Is YOU.

When you look at a lamp, you don't percieve the lamp, you percieve a mental projection of the lamp. The photons that hit the lamp are dispersed by the atoms of the lamp, these photons strike your retina and send electrical impulses to your brain which percieves, categorizes, sorts the information and projects it upon the 'conciousness'. Where we then perceive a lamp in our field of vission. The actual object that is lamp is never percieved.

The same applys for time. We have subjective perceptions about the course of time, based on the memory of the previous moment. However time does not exist. Think about this for a moment if you do not agree...
As far as the universe is concerned, the great objective absolute that is of no finite boundry, time is meaningless. What is now, was then, will be next and always has been. In the great absolute moment beyond all numbers and movement of energy there is the eternal now, and what would be the eternal now if not the infinte collection of all the subsequent 'nows' that are, that have been and that will be?


Another question arises, 'do we exist'?. Subjectively yes, objectively no, nothing does. Let me elaborate on this Buddhistic nihilism.
The statement 'that nothing exist' should be considered in this way.. What is it that we perceive when we look at a Table? We see legs, we see a top, we see a bottom. But when we see all these things, where is the thing we call 'Table'? Looking closer att a table leg we see a top a bottom, we see a surface we see wood, not even can we find this elusive object that is a so called 'leg'? We look even closer at the wood, it is comprised of billions and billions of atoms, not one of these attoms constitues wood. Looking closer at an atom we see protons, neutrons, elktrons, quarks, positrons, anti-protons and anti-neutrons. Between these mostly empty space and elctromagnetic forces. Not even can we find a single atom.... Where then is all that that we call reality? Is it perhaps all in our minds in the most literal sense of the word.
 
The actual object that is lamp is never percieved.

Complete nonsense unless you can tell us what the actual object is?
 
I think the question is what is this "actual object"? The object is constantly changing, the object we percieve now is different to the one we percieve later as it's atoms are always changing, it does not remain the same. I think we percieve things from different levels. From the physical level, we cannot distinguish betweent the differences, but from the quantum level, the differences are clear. When we percieve time in the physical level, it seemed to exist, but at a different level, time is only our imagination, made up to measure how we move through space.
 
(Q) said:
The actual object that is lamp is never percieved.

Complete nonsense unless you can tell us what the actual object is?
Click to expand...

My words were a bit self contratictory and unclear, I made a mistake in my formulation, I admit this, what I was trying to get at is that there is no object.

Please motivate your refutation, intellectualization is cognitive and true intelligence is intuitive however ignorance is simply repetitious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top