Greta wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:24 pm
Things are relative, all is process.
Process is relative, it's all things.
Depends on how you see it.
We do not quite understand time.
The past, the present and future.
All one, yet separate and insubstantial.
6 x 6
I relate with that (but don't know for sure whether I'm interpreting what you said in an accurate way).
We can claim the universe exists, because we believe we are in something, and we can observe patterns; one of them being that we seem to be separate (other things exist), and the laws of physics/mathematics. However we don't know for sure whether there are any laws, despite "common sense". The mind doesn't always give an accurate picture, like for instance you had a dream where you saw a delicious cake that smelled nice, but the dream world and the stimuli could be argued not to be real but an illusion of the brain. Another relevant topic is cognitive bias, and by extension even though its counter-intuitive because we experience time, other people, ourself, and many types of qualia, could "existence" even have a fully objective truth? Because if you describe what is the 'truth'; it's always put in a way in relation to something else, we can't escape existence so this makes it devoid of objective truth, and it will be a label of language in other words, the idea that things have traits for instance a chair has qualities like a chair or a dog has some "dogginess"; we see something and our mind picks up those qualities, then you confirm 'it's a chair', but these judgements are not necessarily true.
Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:24 am
One must be first before other.
I think in one interpretation, this doesn't need to be true if time is infinite (because infinite is not a number like 1, 2, 3 and if you attached it to a number you'd always have that -1 as lower. However, if beginning is 0 and end is 1, then there always seem to be an infinitesimal lower period of time back to the start i.e. 0.1, 0.01, 0.001), or if it loops, but we could argue the beginning still exists (0). Additionally, numbers like 1, 2, 3 and fractions may need to be understood in context of external things (however some quantum physicists may disagree(?)); is it possible to ever explain anything without explaining it in terms of something else and does objective time exist to allow it to be independent?
It seems the brain processes its experience of time differently based on arguments in psychology (like pain seeming to last forever, or having to wait doing nothing with focus on the clock taking a long time, and having fun seeming to last more shortly) and I've heard though don't know if it's true about for life threatening accidents time seeming to last a long time. Relativity also argues this is external too (e.g. the speed that a clock goes for you depending on whether you're lying down (faster) or on a plane (slower)).
But it seems there is also a big dynamic system I guess, where flow requires something else.
Another idea I guess is if you had a movie but it only contained a single fully black image and with 'no' audio (which may be impossible, one type of sound may be required such as environmental noise even if the volume is on 'mute') for 5 minutes. In this case, all frames are valid as first if the film has to play every frame, but the first frame depends on how you interpret 'first', and attaching it to 5 minutes would mean 0.00(...)1 second. However again it's probably not known whether 'time' has objective truth (with a really strict definition of objective which may from a empirical perspective suffer infinite regression not just in a linear way (the transition time occurred (path 1: caused by a man clicking the play button, caused by the code in the computer, caused by the mechanism, caused by physics, ..???); (path 2: because the man felt like it, because of the electrical impulses in his brain, because he was born, because of evolution, because of whatever started the chain of life, etc.). There seem to be multiple causes and not just one but some link back to the same thing.
-- it's just interesting that you're storming off in a huff about discussing nonduality, rather than answering questions that were in direct response/challenge to what you've said. Seems pretty clear that you can't explain your inconsistencies and projections, and you don't want to look at them.
