Time is circular

[Impenitent]

Time implies a Constant...

that's what metronomes are for...

-Imp

[Fairy]

Time is quadratic and geometric by nature.

Does that have anything to do with the Tesseract idea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

The post did not have that in mind, it neither argues against it. The tesseract could be broken down to an advanced loop.

The four foundational aspects of time are a circle/line/spiral/point as inherent processes...the tesseract cube functions like these shapes.

Yes, and it's also interesting that a circle can be moulded into 4 other shapes, for example: a square, a rectangle, a triangle, an oval. Maybe more, but that's all I can think of for now.

It's also interesting to me that the act of seeing, or observing objects is a 2 dimensional process, and yet the space between two or more objects allows for a 3rd dimension to become known, but as a 3D object is known, it can never be seen in it's whole state. The whole of an object can only be known conceptually. And then when those conceptually objects interact with each other, is when a 4th dimension appears as time.

Maybe that's what Spacetime is..It's the appearance or play of concepts or thoughts within the constant.

A bit like a wheel going round and round it's hub centre, while the hub is motionless.


The illusion of motion is rather interesting...https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/w ... peeds.html

[Fairy]

Form is paradox given the foundations of it being a point (nothingness)

Simple geometry shows this.

A line is points between points, thus the point is both finite localization and an infinite continuum, one (as self-referential) and many (as infinite variations as self-referencing). The point is the foundational experiential occurence of reality, and with it premises the experience of reality in paradox.

All forms are the negation of nothingness (0d point) by distinction (recursive continuity as the individuation of the 0d point). Looking at form, one can say that form is space between space.

Yes, I like how you describe it that way. I can see it like that too.

Nothingness isn't a thing / or a something some thing, or something else, or someone else.

These are appearing self referential concepts or conceptualisations. Nothing's appearing. Nothing's happening.

''The elephant in the room'' is infinite, being ''the room'' … not inside any thing - but just as the space, and is unthinkable.

[Age]

Form is paradox given the foundations of it being a point (nothingness)

Simple geometry shows this.

A line is points between points, thus the point is both finite localization and an infinite continuum, one (as self-referential) and many (as infinite variations as self-referencing). The point is the foundational experiential occurence of reality, and with it premises the experience of reality in paradox.

All forms are the negation of nothingness (0d point) by distinction (recursive continuity as the individuation of the 0d point). Looking at form, one can say that form is space between space.

Yes, I like how you describe it that way. I can see it like that too.

Nothingness isn't a thing / or a something some thing, or something else, or someone else.

BUT, to you and "eodnhoj7" anyway, and CONTRADICTORY, 'nothing' IS 'everything', AND, 'everything IS nothing',

So, AGAIN, and CONTRADICTORY, 'Nothingness' is NOT 'a thing', and therefore is 'nothing', but while 'nothingness' and 'nothing' is NOT a thing, a some thing, a something else, nor someone else, 'nothingness' and 'nothing' is, ACTUALLY 'everything'. While, 'everything' is, ALSO, not a thing, and thus 'nothing' as well.

These are appearing self referential concepts or conceptualisations. Nothing's appearing. Nothing's happening.

''The elephant in the room'' is infinite, being ''the room'' … not inside any thing - but just as the space, and is unthinkable.

[Fairy]

A cup is only useful in it’s emptiness. Where there is nothing there can be everything, and where there is everything there can be nothing. The mind abhors a vacuum. What can the mind do with nothing.

Space and the contents of space is the singularity.

[Age]

A cup is only useful in it’s emptiness.

But, a cup just being empty of a fluid, for example, is NOT 'empty', full stop.

And, 'a cup' AND what is called 'an empty cup' are BOTH, OBVIOUSLY, NOT 'no thing' NOR 'nothing'.

Where there is nothing there can be everything,

Is there ANY place in the WHOLE infinite Universe where there is 'nothing'?

If yes, then WHERE is 'that place', EXACTLY?

And, if there is A 'place' where there is 'nothing', the REST OF the Universe, or Everything, OBVIOUSLY, could NOT fit into 'that place'.

and where there is everything there can be nothing.

Again, WHERE, IN 'everything', could there be SOMEWHERE of 'nothing', EXACTLY?

The mind abhors a vacuum.

But, the Mind, Itself, does NOT CARE ABOUT A 'vacuum' AT ALL.

What can the mind do with nothing.

What do 'you' CLAIM 'your mind' could do with 'nothing'?

Space and the contents of space is the singularity.

others SAY and CLAIM that 'singularity' is 'an infinite compression of matter'. Therefore, 'space'' is NOT 'singularity' AT ALL , and the 'contents of space. Although those one's might well SAY and CLAIM that 'singularity', in relation to ALL of the 'matter' of the Universe, Itself, could ACTUALLY BE 'the contents of space', itself.

[Belinda]

Time is like a wheel, it’s purpose is to move, but in the end, it always came back to the place it started.

You pagan you!

As the hymn says

For lo! the days are hastening on
By prophet bards foretold,
When with the ever circling years
Comes round the age of gold;
When Peace shall over all the earth
Its ancient splendors fling,
And the whole world give back the song
Which now the angels sing.


A surprisingly pagan verse of "It Came Upon the Midnight Clear"

[Fairy]

Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever-spinning reel
As the images unwind
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind.

[Eodnhoj7]

Form is paradox given the foundations of it being a point (nothingness)

Simple geometry shows this.

A line is points between points, thus the point is both finite localization and an infinite continuum, one (as self-referential) and many (as infinite variations as self-referencing). The point is the foundational experiential occurence of reality, and with it premises the experience of reality in paradox.

All forms are the negation of nothingness (0d point) by distinction (recursive continuity as the individuation of the 0d point). Looking at form, one can say that form is space between space.

Yes, I like how you describe it that way. I can see it like that too.

Nothingness isn't a thing / or a something some thing, or something else, or someone else.

These are appearing self referential concepts or conceptualisations. Nothing's appearing. Nothing's happening.

''The elephant in the room'' is infinite, being ''the room'' … not inside any thing - but just as the space, and is unthinkable.

Nothingness is a paradox as it is an absence, nothingness exists. The absence of absence is thing. The thing of a thing is both a further thing and and absence of things between things.

Pure absence and pure thingness result in eachother when self-referentiality is applied.

[Eodnhoj7]

Does that have anything to do with the Tesseract idea? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

The post did not have that in mind, it neither argues against it. The tesseract could be broken down to an advanced loop.

The four foundational aspects of time are a circle/line/spiral/point as inherent processes...the tesseract cube functions like these shapes.

Yes, and it's also interesting that a circle can be moulded into 4 other shapes, for example: a square, a rectangle, a triangle, an oval. Maybe more, but that's all I can think of for now.

It's also interesting to me that the act of seeing, or observing objects is a 2 dimensional process, and yet the space between two or more objects allows for a 3rd dimension to become known, but as a 3D object is known, it can never be seen in it's whole state. The whole of an object can only be known conceptually. And then when those conceptually objects interact with each other, is when a 4th dimension appears as time.

Maybe that's what Spacetime is..It's the appearance or play of concepts or thoughts within the constant.

A bit like a wheel going round and round it's hub centre, while the hub is motionless.


The illusion of motion is rather interesting...https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/w ... peeds.html

All shapes are variations of the circle, you start at one point and end up back at it.

I have noticed that 2d paradox a years ago. Everything is fundamentally flat and we only percieve depth to contrast induced changes.

It think time is purely another dimension of space, it is the contrast of space against itself. Motion is purely time. We see movement as one space relative to another and thus comparison necessitate time as self-divided space, a contradiction if you will.

[Belinda]

The post did not have that in mind, it neither argues against it. The tesseract could be broken down to an advanced loop.

The four foundational aspects of time are a circle/line/spiral/point as inherent processes...the tesseract cube functions like these shapes.

Yes, and it's also interesting that a circle can be moulded into 4 other shapes, for example: a square, a rectangle, a triangle, an oval. Maybe more, but that's all I can think of for now.

It's also interesting to me that the act of seeing, or observing objects is a 2 dimensional process, and yet the space between two or more objects allows for a 3rd dimension to become known, but as a 3D object is known, it can never be seen in it's whole state. The whole of an object can only be known conceptually. And then when those conceptually objects interact with each other, is when a 4th dimension appears as time.

Maybe that's what Spacetime is..It's the appearance or play of concepts or thoughts within the constant.

A bit like a wheel going round and round it's hub centre, while the hub is motionless.


The illusion of motion is rather interesting...https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/w ... peeds.html

All shapes are variations of the circle, you start at one point and end up back at it.

I have noticed that 2d paradox a years ago. Everything is fundamentally flat and we only percieve depth to contrast induced changes.

It think time is purely another dimension of space, it is the contrast of space against itself. Motion is purely time. We see movement as one space relative to another and thus comparison necessitate time as self-divided space, a contradiction if you will.

Very good, Eonhodj, but it's strange that time is one-directional from past to future.Or that is how we perceive time, unlike how we perceive space as multi-directional. I think the answer to my difficulty in understanding is that time is , in addition to length, breadth, and depth, another dimension of the material world.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, and it's also interesting that a circle can be moulded into 4 other shapes, for example: a square, a rectangle, a triangle, an oval. Maybe more, but that's all I can think of for now.

It's also interesting to me that the act of seeing, or observing objects is a 2 dimensional process, and yet the space between two or more objects allows for a 3rd dimension to become known, but as a 3D object is known, it can never be seen in it's whole state. The whole of an object can only be known conceptually. And then when those conceptually objects interact with each other, is when a 4th dimension appears as time.

Maybe that's what Spacetime is..It's the appearance or play of concepts or thoughts within the constant.

A bit like a wheel going round and round it's hub centre, while the hub is motionless.


The illusion of motion is rather interesting...https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/w ... peeds.html

All shapes are variations of the circle, you start at one point and end up back at it.

I have noticed that 2d paradox a years ago. Everything is fundamentally flat and we only percieve depth to contrast induced changes.

It think time is purely another dimension of space, it is the contrast of space against itself. Motion is purely time. We see movement as one space relative to another and thus comparison necessitate time as self-divided space, a contradiction if you will.

Very good, Eonhodj, but it's strange that time is one-directional from past to future.Or that is how we perceive time, unlike how we perceive space as multi-directional. I think the answer to my difficulty in understanding is that time is , in addition to length, breadth, and depth, another dimension of the material world.

Time may be the relation of length, breadth and depth or any of these two together. Time is inherently contrast induced change and this contrast is purely spatial.

[Belinda]

All shapes are variations of the circle, you start at one point and end up back at it.

I have noticed that 2d paradox a years ago. Everything is fundamentally flat and we only percieve depth to contrast induced changes.

It think time is purely another dimension of space, it is the contrast of space against itself. Motion is purely time. We see movement as one space relative to another and thus comparison necessitate time as self-divided space, a contradiction if you will.

Very good, Eonhodj, but it's strange that time is one-directional from past to future.Or that is how we perceive time, unlike how we perceive space as multi-directional. I think the answer to my difficulty in understanding is that time is , in addition to length, breadth, and depth, another dimension of the material world.

Time may be the relation of length, breadth and depth or any of these two together. Time is inherently contrast induced change and this contrast is purely spatial.

I suppose you mean that time makes sense only if time is conceived of as a fourth dimension besides length , breadth, and depth. In such a case if I measured a brick with a ruler the dimensions would be correct only for that moment: Id have to do a longitudinal study of the brick but even a longitudinal study would relate to the passing of time.

[Eodnhoj7]

Very good, Eonhodj, but it's strange that time is one-directional from past to future.Or that is how we perceive time, unlike how we perceive space as multi-directional. I think the answer to my difficulty in understanding is that time is , in addition to length, breadth, and depth, another dimension of the material world.

Time may be the relation of length, breadth and depth or any of these two together. Time is inherently contrast induced change and this contrast is purely spatial.

I suppose you mean that time makes sense only if time is conceived of as a fourth dimension besides length , breadth, and depth. In such a case if I measured a brick with a ruler the dimensions would be correct only for that moment: Id have to do a longitudinal study of the brick but even a longitudinal study would relate to the passing of time.

What I am saying is that time is quite simpler: it is the relation of multiple distinctions, and two is the minimum for what is considering multiplicity. Time is purely relational, it is the unfolding of distinctions. Now granted this does not necessarily align with the standard interpretation of time as a fourth dimension...but this is a philosophy forum and is a place for all ideas to occur. There are potential reinterpretations of time.

[Fairy]

For something to begin and end; something would require a starting point ?

What will a starting point look like, maybe this .

But where does a Sphere begin or end? Where is the centre of a Sphere?

''Nature is an infinite sphere of which the center is everywhere and the circumference nowhere''

Time is circular and circular time is an illusion since it's doesn't start somewhere only to end somewhere else, time is simply going round in a circular motion forever.

Where is the starting point of spacetime matter? zooming in, spacetime matter seems to be enlarging until it's disappears completely, or zooming out, spacetime matter seems to be shrinking until it completely disappears. And so the centre of spacetime matter must be everywhere at once, or is the zero point of spacetime matter itself.

And what is the point of all this? Well, the point of all this, is that the point is a circle, you see .

The point is the constant steady state of zero equilibrium; rippling outward in every possible direction; causing the illusion of distance where there is none. The rippling effect never separates from it's original point. Everything is Everything all the time, and so separation is impossible, separation is an illusion.


Consciousness - an animation of Spirit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyuQbIb0Xs&t=63s