Time does not exist.

[Noax]

This is a great example of what I'm talking about. You say, "Earth took time to form but not the measurement of it." If Earth took time to form, then how much time?

I don't care. Earth doesn't care that it was expressed as a measurement or not. Yes, a standard must be defined in order to express a measurement of it, but that standard again is not a requirement for the Earth to form. It is the nature of the thing itself that I'm after when defining time. From there we can worry about how it might be measured.

I get it. You define time as its measurement, a conscious act. Being dependent on a measurer, time would not exist if Earth had not evolved people to give it existence.
What is it that would distinguish a dynamic structure from a static one if neither is measured/observed? You can say that absent the measurement/observation, neither exists, or they're not distinct. I find that a rather idealistic definition then.

[mtmynd1]

Time is a concept that we use to have an idea about two motions, one is our standard clock and another is subject of our experience.

Time is the passage of moments.

[Trajk Logik]

This is a great example of what I'm talking about. You say, "Earth took time to form but not the measurement of it." If Earth took time to form, then how much time?

I don't care. Earth doesn't care that it was expressed as a measurement or not. Yes, a standard must be defined in order to express a measurement of it, but that standard again is not a requirement for the Earth to form. It is the nature of the thing itself that I'm after when defining time. From there we can worry about how it might be measured.

I get it. You define time as its measurement, a conscious act. Being dependent on a measurer, time would not exist if Earth had not evolved people to give it existence.
What is it that would distinguish a dynamic structure from a static one if neither is measured/observed? You can say that absent the measurement/observation, neither exists, or they're not distinct. I find that a rather idealistic definition then.

"I don't care"? Wow. Just wow.

It was you who said "It took time for the Earth to form." How do you define time as something that can be taken? You and Terrapin seem to think that our perceptions and language are perfect representations of the world. You both also seem to forget that most of philosophy's problems stem from an improper use of language (Wittgenstein).

Our brains function at a certain frequency - processing information about the world at a certain speed compared to the rest of the processes in nature. Our minds stretch reality into this notion of space-time, creating this relative nature of processes in the world.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The distance between two objects is called (the) space, right?

No, distance implies a measure.

distance [dis-tuh ns]
noun
1. the extent or amount of space between two things, points, lines, etc.

Even the definition you provided has the word space in it.

'Distance' IS the space, or more correctly, the extent or amount of space between two things... Is this much different at all from what I said?

I was just saying the word/term 'space' can also imply a measure.

Sure, if I had put the word 'sometime's in between 'is' and 'called', then My sentence would be more correct, but the point still stands.

By the way unless you have read everything between bahman and I, then you may well be unaware of what I am actually trying to do here.

Just like the distance between two events is called (the) time, right?

Nope, rather sequence!

sequence [see-kwuh ns]
noun
1. the following of one thing after another; succession.

To measure the 'sequence', which is the following of one thing after another, we sometimes use the word/term 'time', right?.

Here you go, to show you how so called time and space are meaningless:

How exactly have you shown how 'time' and 'space' are meaningless?

They are meaningless in relation to what exactly?

Do you actually know My views on 'time' and 'space'?

Do you know the meaningfulness and meaninglessness of 'space' and 'time' from My perspective?

I gave those "definitions" because they are the exact same ones bahman has used. I just swapped the words 'time' and 'space' around in the definitions to get bahman to see something, which is not yet being seen.

What is the distance between the earth and Neptune, and how much time would it take for you to travel from here to there?

The distance between the earth and neptune is about 2.7 billion miles at their closest and about 2.9 billion miles when they are at their furthest.

How much time would it take for Me to travel from earth to neptune would depend on how fast I am actually traveling, obviously.

What is the point you are trying to make with this question?

Got it? OK.

No, not at all, what was I meant to have got here?

Now lets blow you up so you are 10 billion times larger than the distance between the milky way and Andromeda.

I am not sure what you think I am, but I am pretty sure we have two completely different definitions for 'you', 'I', and 'self'. These things can NOT be blown up, from My perspective.

Now our solar system are like atoms relative to your size, now what is their distance and how long for you to travel between them? Now you can't travel between them can you?

Not sure of what distance you are referring to here, so I can not answer that part. And, of course I could not travel between "them", I could NOT travel between anywhere that is smaller than Me, if that is what you are referring to when say I have been "blown" up.

I really do NOT understand what you have been trying to point out here, especially with these last two questions. Would you like to explain more and/or expand further on what it is that you are wanting to say here?

Maybe tell Me first what you think My reply IS in relation to, then we will see if whatever you are trying to say here has anything at all to do with what My point was in relation to.

The point is that the measurement of both time and space are relative to size. Hence, neither one is a constant; they're variables, dependent only on mans conceptual needs, so he can try and make sense of things from his perspective, his relative size! If man would uncontrollably increase and decrease in size infinitely, his current models of both time and space would be meaningless. He would develop a new model, (concept) to fit his then new perspective. The US standard foot, literally came from one mans foot. Fathom, second, day, kilometer, etc are all arbitrary units of no universal meaning. Man has to lasso reality, as best as his conceptions can muster, or else he'd loose his mind, he tries to make sense of things the best his mind can, to quell his fear, so he feels concrete, real, will live forever! Yet it's to no avail, as he dies in the end, regardless! And so shall his legacy, apparently by his own selfishness/ignorance (realization/denial). Or in other words, the battle between his conscious and unconscious minds.

These battles of wit, on this board, serve the exact same purpose, regardless of each participants relative, 'supposed,' knowledge factor! Creating drama, in order to try and ignore, the truth of his ultimate demise. The more crap he creates, the more he can try and forget.

Harsh, I know, but the truth of mans condition, none the less!

See immediately below for something you can chew on for a while:
(the red is highlighter for the purpose of your concentration)

"The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[17] and Immanuel Kant,[18][19] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled." --wikipedia--

[Terrapin Station]

You and Terrapin seem to think that our perceptions and language are perfect representations of the world. You both also seem to forget that most of philosophy's problems stem from an improper use of language (Wittgenstein).

I actually think our perceptions are "perfect representations" of the world with respect to our perceptions as such, but not otherwise, and you probably primarily had in mind otherwise. I'm not sure why it would seem to you that I'd hold the broader claim.

In other news, Wittgenstein sucks in my opinion.

[ken]

No, distance implies a measure.

distance [dis-tuh ns]
noun
1. the extent or amount of space between two things, points, lines, etc.

Even the definition you provided has the word space in it.

'Distance' IS the space, or more correctly, the extent or amount of space between two things... Is this much different at all from what I said?

I was just saying the word/term 'space' can also imply a measure.

Sure, if I had put the word 'sometime's in between 'is' and 'called', then My sentence would be more correct, but the point still stands.

By the way unless you have read everything between bahman and I, then you may well be unaware of what I am actually trying to do here.

Nope, rather sequence!

sequence [see-kwuh ns]
noun
1. the following of one thing after another; succession.

To measure the 'sequence', which is the following of one thing after another, we sometimes use the word/term 'time', right?.

Here you go, to show you how so called time and space are meaningless:

How exactly have you shown how 'time' and 'space' are meaningless?

They are meaningless in relation to what exactly?

Do you actually know My views on 'time' and 'space'?

Do you know the meaningfulness and meaninglessness of 'space' and 'time' from My perspective?

I gave those "definitions" because they are the exact same ones bahman has used. I just swapped the words 'time' and 'space' around in the definitions to get bahman to see something, which is not yet being seen.

What is the distance between the earth and Neptune, and how much time would it take for you to travel from here to there?

The distance between the earth and neptune is about 2.7 billion miles at their closest and about 2.9 billion miles when they are at their furthest.

How much time would it take for Me to travel from earth to neptune would depend on how fast I am actually traveling, obviously.

What is the point you are trying to make with this question?

Got it? OK.

No, not at all, what was I meant to have got here?

Now lets blow you up so you are 10 billion times larger than the distance between the milky way and Andromeda.

I am not sure what you think I am, but I am pretty sure we have two completely different definitions for 'you', 'I', and 'self'. These things can NOT be blown up, from My perspective.

Now our solar system are like atoms relative to your size, now what is their distance and how long for you to travel between them? Now you can't travel between them can you?

Not sure of what distance you are referring to here, so I can not answer that part. And, of course I could not travel between "them", I could NOT travel between anywhere that is smaller than Me, if that is what you are referring to when say I have been "blown" up.

I really do NOT understand what you have been trying to point out here, especially with these last two questions. Would you like to explain more and/or expand further on what it is that you are wanting to say here?

Maybe tell Me first what you think My reply IS in relation to, then we will see if whatever you are trying to say here has anything at all to do with what My point was in relation to.

The point is that the measurement of both time and space are relative to size. Hence, neither one is a constant; they're variables, dependent only on mans conceptual needs, so he can try and make sense of things from his perspective, his relative size! If man would uncontrollably increase and decrease in size infinitely, his current models of both time and space would be meaningless. He would develop a new model, (concept) to fit his then new perspective. The US standard foot, literally came from one mans foot. Fathom, second, day, kilometer, etc are all arbitrary units of no universal meaning.

Nothing to disagree with here.

Man has to lasso reality, as best as his conceptions can muster, or else he'd loose his mind, he tries to make sense of things the best his mind can, to quell his fear, so he feels concrete, real, will live forever! Yet it's to no avail, as he dies in the end, regardless! And so shall his legacy, apparently by his own selfishness/ignorance (realization/denial). Or in other words, the battle between his conscious and unconscious minds.

This would probably be more accurate if you spoke for 'you' only and not for ALL human beings, but I totally understand where you are coming from. That is generally how human beings think and conceptualize and because of fear why they do the things they do. But human beings do not necessarily behave in the most intelligent of ways, always. In fact if very often at all actually.

These battles of wit, on this board, serve the exact same purpose, regardless of each participants relative, 'supposed,' knowledge factor! Creating drama, in order to try and ignore, the truth of his ultimate demise. The more crap he creates, the more he can try and forget.

Harsh, I know, but the truth of mans condition, none the less!

But I am certainly not here on this board for any of those reasons, but then again I am always being ridiculed for nearly always thinking and doing WRONGLY or differently from what other human beings think and do.

See immediately below for something you can chew on for a while:
(the red is highlighter for the purpose of your concentration)

"The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[17] and Immanuel Kant,[18][19] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled." --wikipedia--

I tend NOT to use past human beings thinking and words for guidance, I discovered I can NOT clarify with them what they were actually meaning.

The only thing I have really alluded to here in this thread is that both 'time' and 'space' can be seen as a thing AND seen as not an actual thing that exists, but as a thing that humans dreamed up, invented and created to use to describe in measurements the distance between two physical things, i.e., space, or the distance between two occurring events, i.e., time. In other words I have just been trying to explain that what is 'seen' IS relative to the observer. As obvious leo has pointed out that what he sees is 'space' does NOT exist but time does, whilst others will say what they 'see' is 'time' does NOT exist but space does.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Even the definition you provided has the word space in it.

'Distance' IS the space, or more correctly, the extent or amount of space between two things... Is this much different at all from what I said?

I was just saying the word/term 'space' can also imply a measure.

Sure, if I had put the word 'sometime's in between 'is' and 'called', then My sentence would be more correct, but the point still stands.

By the way unless you have read everything between bahman and I, then you may well be unaware of what I am actually trying to do here.




To measure the 'sequence', which is the following of one thing after another, we sometimes use the word/term 'time', right?.



How exactly have you shown how 'time' and 'space' are meaningless?

They are meaningless in relation to what exactly?

Do you actually know My views on 'time' and 'space'?

Do you know the meaningfulness and meaninglessness of 'space' and 'time' from My perspective?

I gave those "definitions" because they are the exact same ones bahman has used. I just swapped the words 'time' and 'space' around in the definitions to get bahman to see something, which is not yet being seen.



The distance between the earth and neptune is about 2.7 billion miles at their closest and about 2.9 billion miles when they are at their furthest.

How much time would it take for Me to travel from earth to neptune would depend on how fast I am actually traveling, obviously.

What is the point you are trying to make with this question?



No, not at all, what was I meant to have got here?



I am not sure what you think I am, but I am pretty sure we have two completely different definitions for 'you', 'I', and 'self'. These things can NOT be blown up, from My perspective.



Not sure of what distance you are referring to here, so I can not answer that part. And, of course I could not travel between "them", I could NOT travel between anywhere that is smaller than Me, if that is what you are referring to when say I have been "blown" up.

I really do NOT understand what you have been trying to point out here, especially with these last two questions. Would you like to explain more and/or expand further on what it is that you are wanting to say here?

Maybe tell Me first what you think My reply IS in relation to, then we will see if whatever you are trying to say here has anything at all to do with what My point was in relation to.

The point is that the measurement of both time and space are relative to size. Hence, neither one is a constant; they're variables, dependent only on mans conceptual needs, so he can try and make sense of things from his perspective, his relative size! If man would uncontrollably increase and decrease in size infinitely, his current models of both time and space would be meaningless. He would develop a new model, (concept) to fit his then new perspective. The US standard foot, literally came from one mans foot. Fathom, second, day, kilometer, etc are all arbitrary units of no universal meaning.

Nothing to disagree with here.

Man has to lasso reality, as best as his conceptions can muster, or else he'd loose his mind, he tries to make sense of things the best his mind can, to quell his fear, so he feels concrete, real, will live forever! Yet it's to no avail, as he dies in the end, regardless! And so shall his legacy, apparently by his own selfishness/ignorance (realization/denial). Or in other words, the battle between his conscious and unconscious minds.

This would probably be more accurate if you spoke for 'you' only and not for ALL human beings,
OK, I see it, people take offense when one tells them about themselves, especially if it seems to tarnish their self image. But honestly, I've been studying things that make it very apparent, that what I said above is in fact true for all humans. And I always draw from other disciplines, people, and times when considering somethings truth value.

but I totally understand where you are coming from. That is generally how human beings think and conceptualize and because of fear why they do the things they do.
There's a whole lot about humans that many are unaware. Many of the 'whys' people do as they do, are completely unknown to them, even for you and I, although neither one of us might like to admit it. Humans not only fear many things external to them like lions, bears, lightening bolts, and forest fires, but they also fear being fearful, being known as being fearful, not being accepted in a group, being identified with a controversial group, looking bad in their peers eyes, and the list goes on and on, including the opposites of those things I just mentioned, depending upon the individual.

One of the more fundamental things to consider in understanding my words truth factor, came from Darwin, i.e., "survival of the fittest," in fact all animals prime directive is to live at all costs. They will do anything they can to achieve this goal, i.e., lie, cheat or steal, sometimes even going so far as to kill/murder, if we believe somehow a situation threatens our existence. The reason it's so ingrained in the animals psyche is because it's the longest lived fear, the fear of death, and dates back to when life first came to exist in the primordial ooze, about four billion years ago. It's to be found in every one of the 100 trillion cells that make up an adult human body. Single cells have been shown to swim away from dangerous substances and towards food; the basis for our fear not to die, instead to survive.

But human beings do not necessarily behave in the most intelligent of ways, always. In fact if very often at all actually.
I agree, look at me, I've already told you in another thread that I was cussing and being somewhat mean because of my life's tribulations. I'm sure that you too are able to draw upon your understanding of some of your inconsistencies to say what you have just said. But there is still much about ourselves that we don't fully understand. Even scientists are still trying to fully fathom the human brain.

These battles of wit, on this board, serve the exact same purpose, regardless of each participants relative, 'supposed,' knowledge factor! Creating drama, in order to try and ignore, the truth of his ultimate demise. The more crap he creates, the more he can try and forget.

Harsh, I know, but the truth of mans condition, none the less!

But I am certainly not here on this board for any of those reasons,
Believe it or not, we all are, to some degree or another. That we are unconscious of it, is no surprise. For instance another thing humans do, is to sell to all their peers, an acceptable or even noble perspective, as a reason for doing something, while subconsciously (or worse, consciously) there are selfish/despicable reasons that never get shared as they would be condemned, unless of course shared with someone just as bad; a terrible road to start down. Politicians are notorious for this type deception, though usually both reasons are conscious.

but then again I am always being ridiculed for nearly always thinking and doing WRONGLY or differently from what other human beings think and do.
Here on this board? If so, get used to it. Not that I'm an expert by any means, obviously, but command of the English language is paramount here on this forum. To this day, I often say things that seem to be cryptic to others ears. Because I'm getting older, with ever failing health, in decline of my peak, on top of the fact that I was never that good in the first place, and that since I went to university, I never really kept up, practiced, if you will, I believe many have had to adjust to my way of saying things, while many don't even try. Actually my vocabulary has grown a bit and I'm more relaxed with peoples condescending ways, and I can on occasion say things in such a way as to command the attention of some, and they get me. Of course as you've seen, I still sometimes vent. I really have to instead, incorporate it into a workout routine.

See immediately below for something you can chew on for a while:
(the red is highlighter for the purpose of your concentration)

"The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[17] and Immanuel Kant,[18][19] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled." --wikipedia--

I tend NOT to use past human beings thinking and words for guidance, I discovered I can NOT clarify with them what they were actually meaning.
I do understand that sometimes it's hard to understand age old dialects. I have found that if one rereads as many times as necessary, soon their meaning becomes apparent. But I agree with Kant and the others view of time and space, as stated above in your quote of my quote of wikipedia.


The only thing I have really alluded to here in this thread is that both 'time' and 'space' can be seen as a thing AND seen as not an actual thing that exists, but as a thing that humans dreamed up, invented and created to use to describe in measurements the distance between two physical things, i.e., space, or the distance between two occurring events, i.e., time. In other words I have just been trying to explain that what is 'seen' IS relative to the observer. As obvious leo has pointed out that what he sees is 'space' does NOT exist but time does, whilst others will say what they 'see' is 'time' does NOT exist but space does.
I like this because you still cling to the other thread dealing with relativity, while, whether knowingly or not, seemingly try and attempt to mend Leo and my fence of disagreement. Supposedly Leo just died recently. Before doing so stating that he would not be around much because he wanted to spend more time on his life's philosophical work. If in fact it's true, and if I had known of his closeness with his final day, I probably wouldn't have given him so much grief in our arguments. I would have wanted to give him the gift of calm so as to help him realize more assuredly, that he'd completed his life's works, that in the end he'd done it, that his life was worth all that, which he'd wanted it to account for. Such that he'd peacefully return from whence he'd came, the mighty universe!

Here it's raining now, the tears of mother earth, so fitting for my closure of Leo's return, as the rain and I share. When it comes to death, we almost always initially cling to denial!
The rain and I have a very special relationship, as strange as that might sound. I tend to believe in Gaia and the Universe!

Peace Ken, peace!

[ken]

The point is that the measurement of both time and space are relative to size. Hence, neither one is a constant; they're variables, dependent only on mans conceptual needs, so he can try and make sense of things from his perspective, his relative size! If man would uncontrollably increase and decrease in size infinitely, his current models of both time and space would be meaningless. He would develop a new model, (concept) to fit his then new perspective. The US standard foot, literally came from one mans foot. Fathom, second, day, kilometer, etc are all arbitrary units of no universal meaning.

Nothing to disagree with here.

Man has to lasso reality, as best as his conceptions can muster, or else he'd loose his mind, he tries to make sense of things the best his mind can, to quell his fear, so he feels concrete, real, will live forever! Yet it's to no avail, as he dies in the end, regardless! And so shall his legacy, apparently by his own selfishness/ignorance (realization/denial). Or in other words, the battle between his conscious and unconscious minds.

This would probably be more accurate if you spoke for 'you' only and not for ALL human beings,

OK, I see it, people take offense when one tells them about themselves, especially if it seems to tarnish their self image.

You, nor any human being, could tarnish My image, ever.

I think people take offense when another tries to speak for them for the very simple reason because 'you' can NOT do it accurately.

But honestly, I've been studying things that make it very apparent, that what I said above is in fact true for all humans.

Any evidence of this for ALL human beings?

Could you and will you logically argue this so that it is an unambiguous fact that could not be disputed?

You even mention the word 'mind' three times. What is the mind, and, what is the 'his' in "his mind"?

Also why do you always refer to one gender?

What is the his conscious mind, AND, what is the unconscious mind?

As I said previously it would be far more accurate if you spoke for you only. You do not know what ALL other human beings have gone through, what they now know, and what they are capable of doing, am I right?

Just maybe there is one human being who has learned things that they have not yet expressed, which just might squash most of or maybe all of what you say is fact for ALL human beings. Just something to think about.

I am not saying you are far off the mark, but if you are going to speak for ALL human beings and also say it is a fact, then you better be able to KNOW what you are talking about and be able to back up absolutely everything you say.

Really I am not that interested in your answers to these questions as I know where you are coming from and what you are getting at. Those questions are just put there for you think about if and how you could really answer them.

And I always draw from other disciplines, people, and times when considering somethings truth value.

Do you think that is much different from what all people do when considering somethings truth value?

That way is one way, but there is, I found, another and dare I say it better way for not just considering something truth value but actually discovering the Truth of ALL things.

but I totally understand where you are coming from. That is generally how human beings think and conceptualize and because of fear why they do the things they do.

There's a whole lot about humans that many are unaware.

Just like there is a whole lot about human beings that you, yourself, are unaware of, right?

Many of the 'whys' people do as they do, are completely unknown to them, even for you and I, although neither one of us might like to admit it.

What do you mean by "you and I"? I know you are unaware of some of the 'whys' you, yourself, do. BUT, 'I' actually do KNOW WHY ALL human beings think and do, absolutely every thing that they actually think and do.

That is WHY I suggest you speak for you ONLY. You do NOT KNOW what I KNOW.

Name one meaningful 'why' that you think that I do NOT know.

THEN, name all the ones that you do not know, and, if you like I can help uncover them for you. I actually prefer to not give the answers, but I certainly do like to show you how you can find the answers by yourself.

Humans not only fear many things external to them like lions, bears, lightening bolts, and forest fires, but they also fear being fearful, being known as being fearful, not being accepted in a group, being identified with a controversial group, looking bad in their peers eyes, and the list goes on and on, including the opposites of those things I just mentioned, depending upon the individual.

Yes there is obviously a lot of truth in what you are saying here. BUT, if and when you discover the fundamental WHY, then I would suggest that you then do have a right to speak for ALL human beings, however, as you will also discover and what comes with the understanding and knowing of the fundamental WHY of every human being's thinking and doing IS the loss of the egotistical self in thinking that you want to speak for others.

One of the more fundamental things to consider in understanding my words truth factor, came from Darwin, i.e., "survival of the fittest," in fact all animals prime directive is to live at all costs. They will do anything they can to achieve this goal, i.e., lie, cheat or steal, sometimes even going so far as to kill/murder, if we believe somehow a situation threatens our existence.

Did you not work this out by yourself and know this already? You do NOT need to read other people's writings to find and understand this.

That knowledge comes naturally when understanding other factors. For example as most parents are sub-consciously suggesting when they say they would do anything for their child is that keeping our species is of the highest order. If the Truth be known 'our' existence means 'our species', not one's own individual personal self. That would just be ludicrous to even try to put "our" own individual personal self's existence in front of 'our' species existence. Although there is quite a lot of truth in what you say, but understanding the difference from the personal self and the real and true Self is needed to be understood first, as well as quite a few other things also, which this forum is in no way extensive enough for this to be done right now.

The reason it's so ingrained in the animals psyche is because it's the longest lived fear, the fear of death, and dates back to when life first came to exist in the primordial ooze, about four billion years ago. It's to be found in every one of the 100 trillion cells that make up an adult human body. Single cells have been shown to swim away from dangerous substances and towards food; the basis for our fear not to die, instead to survive.

That is what each human being does UNTIL they each discover WHO/WHAT they really are.

But human beings do not necessarily behave in the most intelligent of ways, always. In fact if very often at all actually.

I agree, look at me, I've already told you in another thread that I was cussing and being somewhat mean because of my life's tribulations. I'm sure that you too are able to draw upon your understanding of some of your inconsistencies to say what you have just said.

Through a truly Honest and Open reflection, of one's self, with a desire to seriously Want to change for the better IS HOW ALL meaningful questions can and WILL be answered.

By the way there is NO "life's tribulations", but there is a perspective from which tribulations in Life are created.

But there is still much about ourselves that we don't fully understand.

Again, I would suggest you speak ONLY for yourself here. Again, you do not yet know what I KNOW.

Even scientists are still trying to fully fathom the human brain.

Just sometimes scientists, and human beings, CAN be looking, from the wrong perspective. There is actually another way of looking, which allows what is being sought after to be found much, much quicker, than is currently available now.

These battles of wit, on this board, serve the exact same purpose, regardless of each participants relative, 'supposed,' knowledge factor! Creating drama, in order to try and ignore, the truth of his ultimate demise. The more crap he creates, the more he can try and forget.

Harsh, I know, but the truth of mans condition, none the less!

But I am certainly not here on this board for any of those reasons,

Believe it or not, we all are, to some degree or another.

That may be what you, yourself, do but I certainly do not do that.

I said, "I am certainly not here on this board for any of those reasons". Do you not believe Me?

I am actually here to learn how to express better so that I can be better understood and so that I can convey My messages more clearly and succinctly. I want to be heard, properly, for once and for ALL.

I am actually NOT creating any drama, although I totally accept others may see it differently. I am here to learn how to express the true Self better and actually one thing I want to show is how human beings actually exist far longer than they could have ever imagined now, and how and when they actually pass over/away, which by the way ALL happens here in this ONE and only Life.

But that is for a completely other story.

That we are unconscious of it, is no surprise.

No it is of no surprise to Me, and neither is ALL the other things that you are still unconsciously aware of yet.

WHY human beings are still unconscious of all the meaningful things in Life is totally understandable and is actually related exactly to WHY all human beings think and do what they think and do.

but then again I am always being ridiculed for nearly always thinking and doing WRONGLY or differently from what other human beings think and do.

Here on this board? If so, get used to it. Not that I'm an expert by any means, obviously, but command of the English language is paramount here on this forum. To this day, I often say things that seem to be cryptic to others ears. Because I'm getting older, with ever failing health, in decline of my peak, on top of the fact that I was never that good in the first place, and that since I went to university, I never really kept up, practiced, if you will, I believe many have had to adjust to my way of saying things, while many don't even try. Actually my vocabulary has grown a bit and I'm more relaxed with peoples condescending ways, and I can on occasion say things in such a way as to command the attention of some, and they get me. Of course as you've seen, I still sometimes vent. I really have to instead, incorporate it into a workout routine.

No not just here in this forum, but just about anywhere I go. When I start talking the full truth of who 'I' am and expressing the true Self, then I always have to pull back on what I reveal and how much I reveal. Most people are not yet ready for that revelation.

See immediately below for something you can chew on for a while:
(the red is highlighter for the purpose of your concentration)

"The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[17] and Immanuel Kant,[18][19] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled." --wikipedia--

I tend NOT to use past human beings thinking and words for guidance, I discovered I can NOT clarify with them what they were actually meaning.

I do understand that sometimes it's hard to understand age old dialects. I have found that if one rereads as many times as necessary, soon their meaning becomes apparent. But I agree with Kant and the others view of time and space, as stated above in your quote of my quote of wikipedia.

The only thing I have really alluded to here in this thread is that both 'time' and 'space' can be seen as a thing AND seen as not an actual thing that exists, but as a thing that humans dreamed up, invented and created to use to describe in measurements the distance between two physical things, i.e., space, or the distance between two occurring events, i.e., time. In other words I have just been trying to explain that what is 'seen' IS relative to the observer. As obvious leo has pointed out that what he sees is 'space' does NOT exist but time does, whilst others will say what they 'see' is 'time' does NOT exist but space does.

I like this because you still cling to the other thread dealing with relativity, while, whether knowingly or not, seemingly try and attempt to mend Leo and my fence of disagreement. Supposedly Leo just died recently. Before doing so stating that he would not be around much because he wanted to spend more time on his life's philosophical work. If in fact it's true, and if I had known of his closeness with his final day, I probably wouldn't have given him so much grief in our arguments. I would have wanted to give him the gift of calm so as to help him realize more assuredly, that he'd completed his life's works, that in the end he'd done it, that his life was worth all that, which he'd wanted it to account for. Such that he'd peacefully return from whence he'd came, the mighty universe!

Actually it was completely unknowingly if I was attempting to mend yours and leo's fence of disagreement.

My actually work, which WILL be done, is to knock down every fence of disagreement and showing ONLY what is important - agreement. This I WILL do by showing, with evidence, how the Mind and the brain can actually together in peace, although as shown throughout this board/forum they can actually also working opposingly.

Here it's raining now, the tears of mother earth, so fitting for my closure of Leo's return, as the rain and I share. When it comes to death, we almost always initially cling to denial!

What do you mean by 'denial'?

I never have been in denial of death, besides at a very young age when I was totally unaware of death. Although on occasions I wished I was never born I have truly never really wanted to die. And although I want to keep living forever, I am never in denial that this body, besides some truly amazing breakthrough, will stop breathing and pumping blood one day.

The rain and I have a very special relationship, as strange as that might sound.

That does NOT sound strange at all to Me. i have experienced that relationship also. I KNOW where you are coming from there.

I tend to believe in Gaia and the Universe!

Peace Ken, peace!

I tend to NOT believe in any thing, besides the Self, but then that could well be ONE, and the same, with the Universe.

I KNOW what the answer is. I just keep some things a mystery until ALL is revealed.

[Walker]

Amazing. All you need is a big enough sail, a sentient nanobot, and a way to turn that ship around. How long would the objective, sunless, nine light-year round trip be for the nanobot at 20% of light speed?

http://www.iflscience.com/space/stephen ... -20-years/

[surreptitious57]

The temporal separation between two points in spacetime just like the spatial separation between two other points in spacetime are things that can be measured but I do not define them to be the measurement itself. I personally define them both to be relations between states of things

The three definitions of time are : the distance between events [ an event is a point in spacetime ] / the passing of an event / the passing
of a thought. And so the first of these three definitions would apply to your example of the temporal separation of two points in spacetime
It is important to separate time from the measurement of time. They are not the same. It would still exist even if it could not be measured

[Noax]

The temporal separation between two points in spacetime just like the spatial separation between two other points in spacetime are things that can be measured but I do not define them to be the measurement itself. I personally define them both to be relations between states of things

The three definitions of time are : the distance between events [ an event is a point in spacetime ] / the passing of an event / the passing
of a thought. And so the first of these three definitions would apply to your example of the temporal separation of two points in spacetime.

From where do each of these definitions come? Yes, I use the first one since it seems to be the one used in physics equations. But there are those that would add other definitions to that list.

It is important to separate time from the measurement of time. They are not the same. It would still exist even if it could not be measured

Tell that to Trajk Logik, not me. I can't think of anything that I define to be the measurement of it, not even measurement itself.

[surreptitious57]

The three definitions of time are : the distance between events [ an event is a point in spacetime ] / the passing of an event / the passing
of a thought. And so the first of these three definitions would apply to your example of the temporal separation of two points in spacetime

From where do each of these definitions come? Yes I use the first one since it seems to be the
one used in physics equations. But there are those that would add other definitions to that list

The second one is used in physics too such as measuring the lifespan of a star for example. The third one is beyond
the remit of science for it cannot be observed. Although the principle is the same : something passing through time

[Noax]

The three definitions of time are : the distance between events [ an event is a point in spacetime ] / the passing of an event / the passing
of a thought.

The second one is used in physics too such as measuring the lifespan of a star for example. The third one is beyond
the remit of science for it cannot be observed. Although the principle is the same : something passing through time

The star lifespan seems to be the temporal separation between the star birth event and the star death event. OK, neither are exactly point events, but neither is the lifespan precision. So same definition of time, but very different definition of event.
I suppose the thought case can also be expressed as the events of the beginnings and end of the thought. Can't be measured, yes, but we don't measure the star birth and death either. All are estimates.

If fact, the lifespan of a star and the thought are just examples of things that take time. What time actually is (the passing of those processes??) is not dependent on precision of measurement.

[Terrapin Station]

I suppose the thought case can also be expressed as the events of the beginnings and end of the thought. Can't be measured, yes, but we don't measure the star birth and death either. All are estimates.

Well, (almost) all measurements are estimates. The only exception might be something like measuring in Planck lengths, but it's still debtable whether that's not an estimate, too.

Anyway, I'd say that "the distance between events" tells us how time is being employed in physics equations, but doesn't tell us anything about what time is ontologically.

[Noax]

I suppose the thought case can also be expressed as the events of the beginnings and end of the thought. Can't be measured, yes, but we don't measure the star birth and death either. All are estimates.

Well, (almost) all measurements are estimates. The only exception might be something like measuring in Planck lengths, but it's still debtable whether that's not an estimate, too.

What time is isn't degraded by our inability to measure it to perfect precision.

Anyway, I'd say that "the distance between events" tells us how time is being employed in physics equations, but doesn't tell us anything about what time is ontologically.

Time seems not to be an ontological commitment. It is part of physics, which doesn't specify the ontology of weight either. So from a metaphysical standpoint, one might propose various ontologies for all of the universe's matter, properties, and relations, but I don't think time should be separated from that list. It is one of those three. I find it to be a relation, so the ontology of it is wherever you classify relations.

An example of where I am not a realist is the axes of spacetime. Which orientation is the x, y, and z axis of the universe? It is totally arbitrary. They don't exist except as I mentally define them. So I'm idealistic about that. Similarly, I'm idealistic about the orientation of the 4th temporal axis. There is just nothing out there to define which way to point it, so any arbitrary choice will work.