We have been here before

[Age]

Time is a substance and it is real. It curves according to general relativity.

What is 'time'?

Time is a thing which allows that events happen sequentially. It is in this sense fundamental in any dynamic reality.

Correct me if I am wrong but, to you, 'time' is a 'thing', which somehow allows other 'things' to happen, correct?

What is the 'substance', which you say time IS?

A substance is something that exists and we can experience it.

Do you purposely ignore answering the ACTUAL question or do you really NOT understand the question?

If, as you say, 'time' is a 'thing', and you also say that 'time' is 'substance', and 'substance is some 'thing' that exists, which 'you' can 'experience' it, then what IS this 'substance' EXACTLY, which you say 'time' is, and which you say and believe you can 'experience'?

How is 'time' real?

Because without it there could not be any change. It is a fundamental variable of any dynamical theory.

LOL

Do you purposely NOT say any thing at all, or are you REALLY UNAWARE what you are doing here?

So, according to the "logic" of "bahman", 'change' could not happen because of 'time', which is a 'fundamental variable' of any 'dynamical theory'.

The absurdness, and the attempt of deflection here, is outstanding.

What does 'a fundamental variable' actually mean?

And what is the 'dynamical theory' exactly? What it 'it' of?

What has some 'fundamental theory' of some 'dynamical theory' got to do with HOW is 'time' REAL, exactly?

If, for example, you said that, "Time is made up of such and such or is made out of this and that (specific substance or material things) and the way they interact with each other, then this causes a fundamental reaction, which causes OTHER things to change in a dynamic process, THEN that is actually saying some thing.

But what you have provided so far says NOTHING at all. All you are doing is SHOWING is your OWN already held BELIEF, and that actually you have NO idea of what you are 'trying to' say. What you are also revealing IS, that maybe there is actually NO such thing as 'time' itself.

[Age]

You are a mind. You as mind have been here a huge number of times.

There is in some sense, and from a particular perspective, some truth in this.

But to see just how much truth you actually know and can explain. Will you elaborate further on what this 'mind' thing is exactly?

Mind is a thing that can experience, decide and cause.

Each when you start to explain some thing, and you say that thing is a 'thing', then what you are REALLY saying is NO thing at all.

But let us continue, so, to you. 'mind' is a thing that can experience, decide, and cause.

Things can be divided to two categories: 1) Mindful and 2) Mindless. Mindless things, such as time, space, etc., can be experienced.

So, 'time' which is nothing more than just a name/label to describe the distance between two defined points, and, 'space' which is nothing more than just a name/label to describe the distance between two defined objects, are, to you, "mindless things", which supposedly can be experienced, by who and/or by what?

And, what are examples of "mindful things"?

If yes, the great.

If no, then okay.

Great.

I asked you; Will you elaborate further on what this 'mind' thing is exactly?

So, when you reply with the one word 'Great', are you inferring the 'mind' is 'great', or are you inferring that you will elaborate further on what this 'mind' thing is EXACTLY, or do you mean some thing else?

Either way, you so far have said NOTHING at all really, other than the obvious 'great'.

Also, where is here, which supposedly 'you' have been a huge number of times?

By here I mean the similar situations in the past.

LOL

Once again you are saying and revealing nothing at all.

What 'similar situations'?

What is a 'huge' number?

A very very big number.

So, 'you' have concluded that 'we' (whoever that is?) has been here in this Universe a very, very big number of times.

The more you are saying, the less you are revealing, and the more confused you appear to be.

How did you leave here, and come back?

Where did you go when you left here?

We go to another reality when we die.

How many 'realities' are there? How do they differ than this 'reality'? What is it like there?

You live there for a very very long time until you get used to everything.

Please NEVER speak for me or on my behalf because you will inevitably be WRONG.

You then somehow manage to come to this reality by forgetting things. Everything looks new to you so you are entertained for a little bit. Until you get used to things. The reality is that eternal life is torture if you could not forget things.

So, HOW did 'you' become AWARE to 'reality' when "others" have not yet?

The mind to me is the essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and act.

What is a 'being', which has the essence, which is the 'mind'?

Being such as me, you, other people or even things.

Your revealing absolutely NOTHING again.

Does a flower that follows the sun, for example, have the ability to experience, decide and act?

Any change requires a mind. I have an argument for that.

You are getting beyond a joke now.

If yes, then is this a 'being' also with the mind as its essence as well?

I cal something which can experience, decide and cause as mind.

Okay.

If no, then will you clarify what is a being and what is not, and/or any thing else wrong here?

Something could be either mindful like me and you or mindless like time and space.

So, some thing could be some thing or some thing else.

Okay.

Therefore, saying that "I have a mind" is not correct.

Okay, so when 'you' wrote, "our minds", then what did you actually mean?

Okay, that is wrong to say too. We are simply minds.

Who, and/or what, are 'minds'?

By we I mean minds.

Okay, so to correct what you previously wrote you mean the word 'we' means 'minds' and the word 'you' means 'mind'. Is this now correct?

Yes. I am a mind.

The absolute absurdity of this is 'you' have, in a sense, arrived at the actual True and Right Answer. you are just totally unaware that there is only One Mind, and totally unaware of a few other "very very big number' of things as well.

But if yes, then what do you mean when you previously wrote and said; What we (or minds) experience resides in we (or minds)?

I mean that our experience resides somewhere otherwise, we couldn't remember them. I think that my experiences reside in my mind. They are personal so they are in me, a mind.

So, in two consecutive sentences you were able to completely contradict "yourself", with one of the sentences being what you had just admitted two sentences earlier what was WRONG of you to say.

Are you saying that what 'you' experience resides in 'you'? (it does help considerably if 'you' speak for 'you' only instead of 'trying to' speak for me and/or "others" as well).

No, I am saying that what I experienced in the past resides in me somehow.

Okay. So, you are NOT sure how what you experience resides in you.

Also, if the mind, which is you, is the essence of a being, then who or what is that 'being' exactly, which the essence of is the mind, which you have just said is 'you' anyway?

Anything which exists has an essence which make it what it is. Things are mindfull/beings or mindless/things. Being like me, you, etc. Things like time, color, space, etc.

Besides this being very confusing on another level, it now appears that you are also saying that the existing you has an essence which is just you, which is just the mind. Therefore the essence of the mind is the mind.

So, who and/or what is the 'being' which 'you' are the essence of, exactly?

I think I answered that.

If you are not even sure if you answered that or not, then I am not surprised, considering your other responses so far.

True.




I think we are minds.

So, what 'you' are essentially saying here is; the mind thinks it and other minds are minds, correct?

There are minds. Each mind can think too.

So, to you, 'a mind', there are "other" 'minds', with each one thinking also.

Do the "other" mind's think they KNOW 'reality' also, but just like that thinking mind those ones are also completely incapable of explaining things in any logical and reasonable way as well? Or, is it just that mind only, which contradicts and confuses itself?

If 'you' want to learn what is actually True, Right, and Correct, just let me know.

[bahman]

Absolutely any person could experience 'waiting'. But this has very little to do with much else here.

Any person can also experience 'True Happiness', 'Pure Bliss', 'Contentment' and other things, but does this mean there is an actual 'heaven' that they are living in?

That is time which allows you to experience different things sequentially.

This is what you BELIEVE is true, which, by the way, you are having trouble explaining and having your explanation accepted. Why do you think or believe this is so?

From my experience the reason why I experience different things sequentially is because I am LOOKING AT the One thing of Life, Existence, or Universe, as distinctly different separate things, and so I see "different things" sequentially. This is because I SEE the One thing in a constant continual change. I SEE Creation continually changing, and evolving into its own Self. This continual change is what allows me to experience the "different things" sequentially.

And, I have ALREADY explained what 'time' IS, to me, and how 'time' relates to the continual changing action-re-action process of Life, Itself.

I also FULLY understand WHY you think and believe what you do, and also KNOW WHY those views and beliefs do NOT fit in with the actual Truth of things.

I have an argument for the necessity of time: Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot lay at the same point since there cannot be any change. A and B, therefore, should lay on different points of a variable one point follows another one. There should however be a duration between these two points. Therefore, this variable is time.

[bahman]

What is 'time'?

Time is a thing which allows that events happen sequentially. It is in this sense fundamental in any dynamic reality.

Correct me if I am wrong but, to you, 'time' is a 'thing', which somehow allows other 'things' to happen, correct?

Partially you understand but I have to correct this: Time is a thing which allows that events happen sequentially.

What is the 'substance', which you say time IS?

A substance is something that exists and we can experience it.

Do you purposely ignore answering the ACTUAL question or do you really NOT understand the question?

I think that I answered you.

If, as you say, 'time' is a 'thing', and you also say that 'time' is 'substance', and 'substance is some 'thing' that exists, which 'you' can 'experience' it, then what IS this 'substance' EXACTLY, which you say 'time' is, and which you say and believe you can 'experience'?

Look at what you experience around yourself, table, chair, space, time, etc. These are different substances.

How is 'time' real?

Because without it there could not be any change. It is a fundamental variable of any dynamical theory.

LOL

.

Do you purposely NOT say any thing at all, or are you REALLY UNAWARE what you are doing here?

I am aware of the things that I am saying.

So, according to the "logic" of "bahman", 'change' could not happen because of 'time', which is a 'fundamental variable' of any 'dynamical theory'.

Change cannot happen without time. Time, therefore, is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory.

The absurdness, and the attempt of deflection here, is outstanding.

It is not. I am correct.

What does 'a fundamental variable' actually mean?

Any theory has a set of variables. Among theories, there is a subset of so-called dynamical theory where variables change. You could have different theories with different variables but time is a common variable in all dynamical theories. That is what I mean with fundamental.

And what is the 'dynamical theory' exactly? What it 'it' of?

Any dynamical theory is a description of changing reality.

What has some 'fundamental theory' of some 'dynamical theory' got to do with HOW is 'time' REAL, exactly?

I already answered that in another post.

If, for example, you said that, "Time is made up of such and such or is made out of this and that (specific substance or material things) and the way they interact with each other, then this causes a fundamental reaction, which causes OTHER things to change in a dynamic process, THEN that is actually saying some thing.

Yes.

But what you have provided so far says NOTHING at all. All you are doing is SHOWING is your OWN already held BELIEF, and that actually you have NO idea of what you are 'trying to' say. What you are also revealing IS, that maybe there is actually NO such thing as 'time' itself.

I know what I a, trying to say.

[bahman]

There is in some sense, and from a particular perspective, some truth in this.

But to see just how much truth you actually know and can explain. Will you elaborate further on what this 'mind' thing is exactly?

Mind is a thing that can experience, decide and cause.

Each when you start to explain some thing, and you say that thing is a 'thing', then what you are REALLY saying is NO thing at all.

A thing simply exists. Each thing has a set of properties. The mind is one of them as it is defined.

But let us continue, so, to you. 'mind' is a thing that can experience, decide, and cause.

Yes, let's continue.

Things can be divided to two categories: 1) Mindful and 2) Mindless. Mindless things, such as time, space, etc., can be experienced.

So, 'time' which is nothing more than just a name/label to describe the distance between two defined points, and, 'space' which is nothing more than just a name/label to describe the distance between two defined objects, are, to you, "mindless things", which supposedly can be experienced, by who and/or by what?

Can you experience waiting? Time is a thing that allows that waiting happens. I was waiting for one hour in doctor's office. You couldn't experience waiting without time since all states of affair lay at the same point.

And, what are examples of "mindful things"?

You, me, any other mind.

If yes, the great.
If no, then okay.

Great.

I asked you; Will you elaborate further on what this 'mind' thing is exactly?

I don't understand what you trying to know more. Mind is a thing. Things exist. Anything has a set of properties, in case of mind we have the ability to experience, etc.

So, when you reply with the one word 'Great', are you inferring the 'mind' is 'great', or are you inferring that you will elaborate further on what this 'mind' thing is EXACTLY, or do you mean some thing else?

No, I didn't mean that. I think I already answered to your question before I said Great. So it is a confirmtion of what you wanted to know: If yes then great,...

Also, where is here, which supposedly 'you' have been a huge number of times?

By here I mean the similar situations in the past.

LOL

Once again you are saying and revealing nothing at all.

What 'similar situations'?

Situation is a state of affair that you can experience it. For example, it is raining.

What is a 'huge' number?

A very very big number.

So, 'you' have concluded that 'we' (whoever that is?) has been here in this Universe a very, very big number of times.

Yes, because we have Deja Vu.

The more you are saying, the less you are revealing, and the more confused you appear to be.

I think I am explaining myself as simple as I can.

How did you leave here, and come back?

Where did you go when you left here?

We go to another reality when we die.

How many 'realities' are there?

There are many realities out there.

How do they differ than this 'reality'? What is it like there?

We will know when we die.

You live there for a very very long time until you get used to everything.

Please NEVER speak for me or on my behalf because you will inevitably be WRONG.

So you never get to use a thing? How many times can you read a same sentence and don't get bored?

You then somehow manage to come to this reality by forgetting things. Everything looks new to you so you are entertained for a little bit. Until you get used to things. The reality is that eternal life is torture if you could not forget things.

So, HOW did 'you' become AWARE to 'reality' when "others" have not yet?

What do you mean?

What is a 'being', which has the essence, which is the 'mind'?

Being such as me, you, other people or even things.

Your revealing absolutely NOTHING again.

I am giving you examples.

Does a flower that follows the sun, for example, have the ability to experience, decide and act?

Any change requires a mind. I have an argument for that.

You are getting beyond a joke now.

I have an argument for what I am saying. I am not joking at all.

If yes, then is this a 'being' also with the mind as its essence as well?

I cal something which can experience, decide and cause as mind.

Okay.

Okay.

If no, then will you clarify what is a being and what is not, and/or any thing else wrong here?

Something could be either mindful like me and you or mindless like time and space.

So, some thing could be some thing or some thing else.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, so when 'you' wrote, "our minds", then what did you actually mean?

Okay, that is wrong to say too. We are simply minds.

Who, and/or what, are 'minds'?

I already defined it.

Okay, so to correct what you previously wrote you mean the word 'we' means 'minds' and the word 'you' means 'mind'. Is this now correct?

Yes. I am a mind.

The absolute absurdity of this is 'you' have, in a sense, arrived at the actual True and Right Answer. you are just totally unaware that there is only One Mind, and totally unaware of a few other "very very big number' of things as well.

Can you prove that only one mind exists?

But if yes, then what do you mean when you previously wrote and said; What we (or minds) experience resides in we (or minds)?

I mean that our experience resides somewhere otherwise, we couldn't remember them. I think that my experiences reside in my mind. They are personal so they are in me, a mind.

So, in two consecutive sentences you were able to completely contradict "yourself", with one of the sentences being what you had just admitted two sentences earlier what was WRONG of you to say.

What is wrong?

Are you saying that what 'you' experience resides in 'you'? (it does help considerably if 'you' speak for 'you' only instead of 'trying to' speak for me and/or "others" as well).

No, I am saying that what I experienced in the past resides in me somehow.

Okay. So, you are NOT sure how what you experience resides in you.

No. I don't know how I can remember them. Everything that I experienced, so-called collective memory, resides inside my mind. I don't know how we could construct a single thought too.

Also, if the mind, which is you, is the essence of a being, then who or what is that 'being' exactly, which the essence of is the mind, which you have just said is 'you' anyway?

Anything which exists has an essence which make it what it is. Things are mindfull/beings or mindless/things. Being like me, you, etc. Things like time, color, space, etc.

Besides this being very confusing on another level, it now appears that you are also saying that the existing you has an essence which is just you, which is just the mind. Therefore the essence of the mind is the mind.

I didn't say so.

So, who and/or what is the 'being' which 'you' are the essence of, exactly?

I think I answered that.

If you are not even sure if you answered that or not, then I am not surprised, considering your other responses so far.

I am sure of what I am saying.

So, what 'you' are essentially saying here is; the mind thinks it and other minds are minds, correct?

There are minds. Each mind can think too.

So, to you, 'a mind', there are "other" 'minds', with each one thinking also.

Yes.

Do the "other" mind's think they KNOW 'reality' also, but just like that thinking mind those ones are also completely incapable of explaining things in any logical and reasonable way as well? Or, is it just that mind only, which contradicts and confuses itself?

They are confused.

If 'you' want to learn what is actually True, Right, and Correct, just let me know.

I am open to hear things from you.

[Age]

That is time which allows you to experience different things sequentially.

This is what you BELIEVE is true, which, by the way, you are having trouble explaining and having your explanation accepted. Why do you think or believe this is so?

From my experience the reason why I experience different things sequentially is because I am LOOKING AT the One thing of Life, Existence, or Universe, as distinctly different separate things, and so I see "different things" sequentially. This is because I SEE the One thing in a constant continual change. I SEE Creation continually changing, and evolving into its own Self. This continual change is what allows me to experience the "different things" sequentially.

And, I have ALREADY explained what 'time' IS, to me, and how 'time' relates to the continual changing action-re-action process of Life, Itself.

I also FULLY understand WHY you think and believe what you do, and also KNOW WHY those views and beliefs do NOT fit in with the actual Truth of things.

I have an argument for the necessity of time: Consider a change in a system, A to B. A and B cannot lay at the same point since there cannot be any change. A and B, therefore, should lay on different points of a variable one point follows another one. There should however be a duration between these two points. Therefore, this variable is time.

Yes the NAME given to the DURATION between the CHANGING of ANY thing from A to B is 'time'. But as I say 'time' is just a NAME or LABEL to describe some thing. In this case the WORD, NAME, or LABEL 'time' is just used to DEFINE or DESCRIBE the amount of DURATION between the CHANGE, or between TWO separately DEFINED EVENTS.

Obviously there would NOT be a DURATION without CHANGE. Therefore, CHANGE is obviously NEEDED, for the variation between TWO POINTS, and 'time' is NOT needed because 'time' is just a word, name, or label, that ONLY describes the variable length and/or duration of change and does NOTHING ELSE as 'time' is NOT made up of ANY thing that could effect ANY thing.

Unless of course you SHOW and or PROVE otherwise.

Your "argument" so far is NOT for the "necessity of time", but rather just talks about the OBVIOUS action of CHANGE, which OBVIOUSLY occurs, and which obviously could NOT stop, because of HOW the Universe is made up AND works. That is; physical things are able to interact and react with each other ALWAYS, which causes CHANGE. Physical things can do this FREELY, because of the empty space between them, which causes CHANGE.

The reason there is CHANGE, and thus a duration between two noticeable points, is not because there is some thing as 'time' itself, but SIMPLY because physical things are able to MOVE ABOUT FREELY, and EASILY.

[surreptitious57]

I also think that time is simply the name for different periods of change that occur within the observable Universe
Time is what separates one point of now from another point of now and though now is eternal it is never the same

But if time is a measurement of actual change then it should be regarded as an actual thing as well
I say this as it would be wrong to regard time as not a thing as this would make absolutely no sense

This is my view at this point in time but since it is an opinion and not a fact then it could be false
So I will not hold onto it anymore than I really have to but for now it is the position that I do hold

[commonsense]

I also think that time is simply the name for different periods of change that occur within the observable Universe
Time is what separates one point of now from another point of now and though now is eternal it is never the same

But if time is a measurement of actual change then it should be regarded as an actual thing as well
I say this as it would be wrong to regard time as not a thing as this would make absolutely no sense

This is my view at this point in time but since it is an opinion and not a fact then it could be false
So I will not hold onto it anymore than I really have to but for now it is the position that I do hold

Good points. I almost agree completely. I would merely quibble that there are no periods of change. It’s just changes that occur in the only point, which is named “now”.

[Age]

I also think that time is simply the name for different periods of change that occur within the observable Universe
Time is what separates one point of now from another point of now and though now is eternal it is never the same

But if time is a measurement of actual change then it should be regarded as an actual thing as well
I say this as it would be wrong to regard time as not a thing as this would make absolutely no sense

This is my view at this point in time but since it is an opinion and not a fact then it could be false
So I will not hold onto it anymore than I really have to but for now it is the position that I do hold

Good points. I almost agree completely. I would merely quibble that there are no periods of change. It’s just changes that occur in the only point, which is named “now”.

I now agree also that 'time' is better regarded as an actual 'thing', but a 'thing' not in the sense of it being a physical or tangible thing, but in the sense of 'time' just being a name, which describes and/or defines the measurement of change. So, to me, 'time' is a thing that exists in concept only.

I also distinguish the One eternal NOW, from the perceived different separate nows, with and by capital letters.

[bahman]

If there was no time then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous. You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change.

[Age]

If 'you' want to learn what is actually True, Right, and Correct, just let me know.

I am open to hear things from you.

Let us see just how open you really are to hear things from me, is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

[bahman]

If 'you' want to learn what is actually True, Right, and Correct, just let me know.

I am open to hear things from you.

Let us see just how open you really are to hear things from me, is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

Prove it.

[Age]

I am open to hear things from you.

Let us see just how open you really are to hear things from me, is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

Prove it.

Did you NOT understand the Truly very SIMPLE clarifying question I asked you?

If you can not work it out, the question was asked to you for you to PROVE that you are really open. You, did after all, claim that you are open, so yes, prove that you are.

Is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

[bahman]

Let us see just how open you really are to hear things from me, is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

Prove it.

Did you NOT understand the Truly very SIMPLE clarifying question I asked you?

If you can not work it out, the question was asked to you for you to PROVE that you are really open. You, did after all, claim that you are open, so yes, prove that you are.

Is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

No. I already argued against that: If there was no time then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous. You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

[commonsense]

Prove it.

Did you NOT understand the Truly very SIMPLE clarifying question I asked you?

If you can not work it out, the question was asked to you for you to PROVE that you are really open. You, did after all, claim that you are open, so yes, prove that you are.

Is it possible that 'time' exists in concept only?

No. I already argued against that: If there was no time then all events lay at a point, everything looks simultaneous. You couldn't possibly have a continuous form of change as we experience.

Are you denying that there could be any possibility at all?