A Position on Time

[BrainEater]

brane theory is parallel universe theory. the world of appearances is an illusion, because that's what it IS, a world OF appearances.

 

[IJesusChrist]

brane theory says that two branes "collided" to spur the big bang.... but before that, both branes - which I guess are parallel universes - there was nothing in either...

"Yeah so... ok how bout, the universe was made from the clap of two of these planes that are 4 dimensional, and moved in the 5th dimensions (shit, greg, we can use 5 dimensions right? ok) ok yeah and then... well yeah that obviously explains mass, right guys?"

"Wait... why ... wait what the fuck are you talking about"

"I don't know, but in 10 years we will!"

"What the fuck man?"

"someone tell the press! We're on to something good"

"Dude, what the FUCK are you talking about?"

 

[BrainEater]

the basic theorem for understanding dimensionality: a sphere and a wall... light is BENT.... light makes reality just like it is, apart from enabling you to see it, obviously... and reality can be bent... AND the wave-particle-dualism is illusion, obviously or if you are not yet sure of that watch this:

[youtube]RDDF9aXSQRA[/youtube]


i think the past comes from within and the future is out there. otherwise to me it wouldn't logically make sense.

 

[ophiuchus]

if i read a coherent thought in this thread, i couldn't tell you where it went for the life of me

 

[IJesusChrist]

the basic theorem for understanding dimensionality: a sphere and a wall... light is BENT.... light makes reality just like it is, apart from enabling you to see it, obviously... and reality can be bent... AND the wave-particle-dualism is illusion, obviously or if you are not yet sure of that watch this:

[movie about optical illusions]

What the fuck are you talking about? That has NOTHING to do with bending light or space... it's an optical illusion. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with wave-particle dualism either...

Have YOU taken quantum mechanics yet? Have YOU taken neurology courses yet? Psychology? Physics? Anything? Your knowledge is coming from youtube.

 

[morethanasphere]

My point being, how did you come to the point of researching, or hearing about branes?

Was it:
1.Discovery channel
2.Wikipedia
3.IAmTheBestScientistEverButCan'tMakeADecentWesbite.org

None of the above. It was like this...I woke once in the middle of the night; the TV was on; Charlie Rose, on PBS; his guest was a strikingly beautiful, fantastically intelligent, amazingly articulate woman; she was speaking about something I'd never had introduced to my consciousness: brane theory. I watched till the end of the show and went back to sleep.

The next day, through no conscious or unconscious prompting on my part, my wife went to a bookstore near her work, where she sometimes kills time on her lunch hour, purchasing and bringing home for me a book by that very same woman I had seen on Charlie Rose the previous night. So I read her book in its entirety.

You see, I don't believe in coincidence.

 

[ophiuchus]

Well, you are some dude declaring himself JesusChrist on a druguser website and she is nothing more than an eminent particle physicist

the i in front of ijesuschrist implys to me, not that he thinks literally, "im jesus christ", but reads to me as a joke on christianity, as it would be a mockery of how christianity has/is meddling it's hands around in technology and sciences advances. i could be wrong though, as this is my speculation, i've never asked ijc personally about this before.

why are you so defensive? because you dont understand enough to prove what the brane theorist has proposed. well it's ok if you dont, because it's just a theory, which means that the theorist doesn't fully understand either. you DID know what a theory was, right?

dont get me wrong, i dont believe in coincidences either, but i see these theories as only allusions towards the truth, not truth itself, as thats what a "theory" implies bye definition... an allusion, not braineaters illusions...

 

[morethanasphere]

the i in front of ijesuschrist implys to me, not that he thinks literally, "im jesus christ", but reads to me as a joke on christianity, as it would be a mockery of how christianity has/is meddling it's hands around in technology and sciences advances. i could be wrong though, as this is my speculation, i've never asked ijc personally about this before.

why are you so defensive? because you dont understand enough to prove what the brane theorist has proposed. well it's ok if you dont, because it's just a theory, which means that the theorist doesn't fully understand either. you DID know what a theory was, right?

dont get me wrong, i dont believe in coincidences either, but i see these theories as only allusions towards the truth, not truth itself, as thats what a "theory" implies bye definition... an allusion, not braineaters illusions...

Defensive? Really? Is that how you read it? If so, this is a mistaken assumption on your part. It's quite common in internet discussions where, lacking non-verbal cues and such, participants read their own inner foibles into the words of others. I wouldn't feel bad about it if I were you.

As to your other comments, I was fully cognizant of the mockery in IJC's handle. It does seem a little juvenile, though, to me personally. I won't bother to address your points on Christianity, as they are superfluous and specious. (That means too-often-repeated and without factual merit; a tiresome party-line, in other words.)

As to brane or other theories, what in my comments gave you the impression I was trying to "prove" anything? Again, a respondent reading their own thing into anothers thing in a not-too-well-thought-out manner.

I, too, understand that theories are not facts; the theory of evolution for instance; the big bang theory; the theory of relativity; string theory; a whole slew of them commonly accepted as fact by "thinking" persons.

You seem like a smart person. I'm sure you understand.

 

[sidefx]

What if you did go back in time, but you moved country and lived in another country your whole life.
And your Gran-daddy did bang your Grandma and had your Dad and he and your Mother had you and nothing changed, does the world get filled with ME.
or does the whole thing just start over. sound trippy to you too. does that work?

 

[sidefx]

1 of Einstiens theories was he thought the universe would expand to a point were it would reach a barrier or it would just collapse in on its self, and in this chaos he said Time could relapse spiraling backwards in reverse to the beginning.
but he thought this would probably feel no different than normal time perception re-living life and not knowing it he also said thats what deja vu could be a strange sense of familiarity..
I wonder if the universe always was. and the big bang just filled it.
or if the big bang made the universe.
And what was before the big bang.

 

[BrainEater]

in the beginning was nothing. then there was everything, after it had been made. as it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end. as above, so below. along with the ceation of time, there came to be space. along with the creation of space and time there came the to be the universe. with the creation of the universe, there came thought in all its possible forms, energy potentials & manifestations... then there was reflection..

peace out :weedman:

 

[ophiuchus]

I will never take you seriously if you take Brane theory seriously.

Well, you are some dude declaring himself JesusChrist on a druguser website and she is nothing more than an eminent particle physicist, so yeah, I see your point. I mean, you know all there is to know, right? Nothing was not made but for you and all that? I get it. Pardon me for not digging on your scared rap. Think I need a bonghit or something?

..................................

Defensive? Really? Is that how you read it? If so, this is a mistaken assumption on your part. It's quite common in internet discussions where, lacking non-verbal cues and such, participants read their own inner foibles into the words of others. I wouldn't feel bad about it if I were you.

'...some dude...JesusChrist on a druguser website..." V.S. "...eminent particle physicist...". "

oh, why of course not, your comparison wasnt fecetious at all...
not a mistaken assumption on my part, a mistaken assertion on yours. nowhere in that post did you say anything about NOT taking brane theory seriously. remember that next time all you do is post a series of 3 videos in a row about one point of view with only a one word response: "Branes" describing "how (do) you know" something.

"your scared rap. Think I need a bonghit or something?"
and therefore, i dont even need to say anything at this^ to explain it, because, simply by reading this statement, you imply more than if you even tried to explain what you meant. or i am mistaken, and you are simply horrible at editing your words so that they don't look like insults. but of course, you seem like a smart person, i think you understand... really.

As to your other comments, I was fully cognizant of the mockery in IJC's handle. It does seem a little juvenile, though, to me personally. I won't bother to address your points on Christianity, as they are superfluous and specious. (That means too-often-repeated and without factual merit; a tiresome party-line, in other words.)

dear god. really? after that, you can suck my dick.
you have no idea about what i would have to say concerning ANY religions, not only because nowhere in my statement did i present one of my own opinions, but also, i never gave any remark that implied that that was my view at all. i was simply trying to mellow out some unprovoked hostility from you by presenting what i thought he would have to say of his name.
huh, that sentence looks funny now considering the pretenses that you use in your arguement against mine... you imply: oh i said it, but i never said that i believed it. well now, i guess ill use that arguement too, although, mine was a quotation, and yours was not. so, uh... :|

look how many posts you have, do you honestly think you are experienced enough here to make ANY speculations about ANY members of this forum yet, or even at all? even i am not that brazen.

As to brane or other theories, what in my comments gave you the impression I was trying to "prove" anything? Again, a respondent reading their own thing into anothers thing in a not-too-well-thought-out manner.

i dont know where you quoted that word "prove", because it wasn't from MY post, nor ijc's. go look jackass. (it's the at the bottom of pg.1/top of pg.2) so, now, seeing that i NEVER even assumed that you were trying to "prove" anything, ill tell you that all of my response was in reference, strictly, to the only words you gave us. "Branes"
so only logically, this statement below could only be referring to you, not me.
"a respondent reading their own thing into anothers thing in a not-too-well-thought-out manner"

so yeah, lets quote it again so you know exactly what i mean, because obviously you didn't think either of your posts out long enough...

and you know this how?

Branes

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... -of-branes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_(M-Theory)

you could have said "well here is some evidence i've come across recently", or ANYTHING really... at least SOMETHING of the like and this would never have even come up.

look man, im willing to work with you and this forum and play ball. i'd happily share my real thoughts on this topic (that i have yet to do thus far), so long as you quit trying to play the alpha male game for a minute. our views(you and i) are not even very different, from what productive information ive read of yours..

seriously, quit taking this so personally and get over it. it's not about YOU, it's about the forum. back on topic now? i won't produce another one of these messages, i have said pretty much all that i have to say about it, now be done with it.

iJESUS CHRIST!

 

[IJesusChrist]

MorethanASphere,
My name is just an avatar, it has no meaning except to frustrate those who it would frustrate, if someone dislikes my name, that was the intention - if you don't care, that was also the point. It really had no meaning, planning, thought put into it.

Beyond that, that is exactly what I thought. You are claiming ownership of the understanding of an idea from a TV show and a single book. I'm just going to leave it at that.

 

[sidefx]

first there was the earth, and Plants. and they were Good

 

[ophiuchus]

"I posit that time does not exist, that time is nothing more than an intellectual construct employed by consciousness to measure change."

in this first sentence, are you referring to the word time as the word time, i mean simply the idea or concept? or are you referring to the actual "act" of time, the indescribable constantly shifting unmeasurable force? to put it another way are you referring to the things that we use to measure time, or are you referring to actual time itself (in/as reality)? this would help us all understand where you are coming from a little better

 

[morethanasphere]

No; I'm positing there is no "actual 'act' of time" but rather there is only change, "the indescribable constantly shifting unmeasurable force," as you put it. I'm positing that that time, therefore, does not actually exist outside of consciousness, that time is an intellectual construct employed by consciousness to measure change.

I use the word "posit" to make understood that I'm neither stating what is or my opinion of what is but merely putting up a topic for discussion.

All clear now?

 

[IJesusChrist]

time is identicle to space.

It doesn't exist till you experience it.

 

[morethanasphere]

Agreed, in a sense. I would add neither space nor time exist for you until you experience them. My whole point is that space can exist just fine without anyone there to experience it, but that without anyone to experience space there is no time.

 

[IJesusChrist]

You have to understand, space and time are not seperate things. We perceive them as seperate, but they are the exact same thing of the whole.

 

[morethanasphere]

And I am here positing you are mistaken on that lone point. I am here saying space will still exist and be spacey whether we, conscious beings, the only life we know or can conceive of, exist or not. I'm here saying we, those who exist within and are bound by time, the intellectual construct we build for and imprison ourselves within, are the guards in our own self-built prison, but that this prison is not all there is. I'm here saying it's not really even a prison. But it is if that's what you see it as. I'm here saying time is nothing more than a measurement of the only constant there truly is: change.

Nothing ever stays the same.

Everything changes all the time.


Time is an intellectual construct we all use and participate in. There's a good reason for this.

It works.

But even though it works, even if we all disappeared this very second, everything would go on without us just as it does with us. Anything other than that is nothing more than human conceit.

That's all I came here to say.