Einstein said: "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
What does he mean by that?

Einstein was obviously a daftarse!! (:>/

He never really got old and grey. He was always young and youthful. His aging was only a figment of his and everyone else's imagination.

Hmmmm.

Dear Ludwig,

You'll have to forgive me here as I have no science background - just doing the best with what I've got....
Perhaps he is saying that what we refer to as the dimension of time is merely our way of measuring the interchange of the particles of matter as they move through space.
I'm rather intrigued about the issue of time - hoping for enlightenment.

Poirot, judging by the opinions of renowned physicists around the world, there seems to be some truth in Einstein’s assertion that time and atomic physics are interrelated. But it is so ethereal at the level of our everyday lives or to anything that could ever significantly affect us as to be virtually meaningless.

No matter how much we may wish time to be an illusion, and hope that we will wake up in the morning 20 years younger and live forever, we all know that it inescapably dominates our lives, dammit!

Alright, delving into the ethereal a bit – apparently if some astronaut were to travel at the speed of light or thereabouts to a planet orbiting a star thirty light-years away for example, he/she would arrive there considerably younger than the length of the journey would suggest. Beats me how that could be.

How can speed be related to the passage of time, especially when speed is only relevant to a particular body? For example, you are (presumably) not moving at the moment relative to the Earth. But you are hooting along relative to the sun and absolutely bottling along relative to some far-distant galaxy!

Does that mean that if you are an old fart to fellow earthlings you would appear to be a gilded youth to a visitor from a far-distant planet?? (:> |

Given the character of his contributions, I think Einstein is saying that there is no “now”. Two observers cannot simultaneous occupy the same space-time, because the experience of each observer is particular and is related to the independent motion of each observer. Individuals may expereince their own historical time, yet their is no past, now or future in an absolute sense.

"... yet there is no past, now or future in an absolute sense."

Big question, Poirot. I recommend that you read Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time', which was specifically written to explain difficult concepts in physics to lay people. Great book.

Or watch the film Donnie Darko.

“Present” is merely that less than a moment which delineates between the fanciful promises of the future and the cold, hard facts of the past.

And at moments like this I would add

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat the errors of the past.

That is how and why we end up with a bunch of useless politicians as we have in government today -

Some new generation which arrogantly thinks it knows better and will do better than its forebearers

Two objects cannot occupy the same space-time dimension, but two objects can exist in the same space in different times. I understand that physicists view time as a forth dimension. OK that's it, taking CJ's advice. Off to read Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' if only to find the words for what I intuit. Has been on my list of books to read, now, perhaps, it is time.

I hope.

Poirot for someone who claims they have no scientific back ground, your approach to problems is very science orientated.

I've long tentatively concluded that everything has already happened, just not for us hear and now. I agree that time is a stubborn part of our view of reality, but am also persuaded it's an illusion. The future is then just as real as the present; indeed I suspect we are haunted by the future--depending on how much humanity evolves in the future, it's perfectly reasonable to me to speculate that future humans can and do revisit their past in some way. The sheer ambiguity of our reality makes it difficult for me ultimately to subscribe to it. I go along with it, of course, but I'm always waiting for someone to jump up and say, "Ha! Fooled you!"

Dear Poirot,

Time is one of the world's deepest mysteries.
Yet, the ability to measure time makes our
way of life possible. I suppose one way of
thinking about time is to imagine a world
without it. This timeless world would be at
a standstill. But if some kind of change took
place, that timeless world would be different
"now" than it was "before." The period - no
matter how brief - between "before," and "now"
indicates that time must have passed.
Therefore time and change are related because
the passing of time depends on changes taking place.

In the real world, changes never stop happening.
When people began to count repeating events,
they began to measure time.

Scientists think of time as a fundamental quantity
that can be measured. Other fundamental quantities
include length and mass. Albert Einstein realized
that measurements of these quantities are affected
by "relative motion," (motion between two objects).
Because of his work, time became known as the
"fourth dimension." Many physicists believe that
the apparent nonstop, forward flow of time is not a
property of the basic laws of nature. They consider
it a result of the fact that the universe is expanding
and becoming more disorganised. Some have considered
the possibility, under certain circumstances, time
might flow backwards. However experiments haven't
supported this idea.

Dear Severin,

"...but two objects can exist in the same space in different times."

Perhaps not.

Our common sense perceptualisations would see the earth proceeding in an an elliptical orbit around the sun, thus, given an annual interval it has returned to the same spot. Not so. What really has happened is the sun and earth have moved through space-time and the earth's motion around the sun would be better described as spiral through space-time, in lieu of an orbit.

Strange stuff. Quantum mechanics is even stranger. :)

Oliver

>> "...but two objects can exist in the same space in different times."

Perhaps not. <<

But we simply don't know for sure. As you say, Quantum physics is weird stuff, such as the behaviour of time and physical objects when entering a black hole in space.

I really like the idea of two objects in the same place at different times, hasn't there already been some research at a quantum level of this phenomenon?

In answer to Poirot's question, I am saying that time does exist but not necessarily in a linear fashion as we humans generally perceive it.

Houellebecq,

I watched Donnie Darko with my daughter some years ago - will have to catch up with it again.

Severin,

It seems that the dimension of time isn't the driver of the changes (as most of us tend to assume) - but merely our way of describing and measuring the changes that matter goes through as it moves from one state to another.

C.J.,

Thanks for reminding of Hawking's book. I have a copy around here...somewhere. I'm with Severin - off to hunt it down.

Foxy and Squeers,

Thanks for that - fascinating subject, isn't it.

Hello Severin,

"...I really like the idea of two objects in the same place at different times, hasn't there already been some research at a quantum level of this phenomenon?"

Maybe you are thinking of the co-existence of two (or more) states in superposition as described in QM. Here, observation in our universe makes one state real in our universe. The question here is what denotes an observers a human, a satient being, a microbe or the environment. If say a human, the evolved universe, in a sense, did not exist, until it was observed by a human: That is too much for my mere primate brain to handle.

Back to Einstein. Space and time are intertwined.

Hi Foxy,

Good post.

Time is just a way of preventing everything from happening at once.

Figure that out and the rest should just fall into place.

yep... no past.. no future.. we are all gods :) or. "god"....

Let's all become Hindu's and peace will reign ?

No...kidding of course.

Hello Al,

What does the Bible say about time?

There is that one that starts, "Everything has a season..." or something like that.

Ludwig, I'm no scientist either, but as I know it time is measured by how long it takes for the sun to orbit the earth.

Hours minutes and seconds are simply ways of breaking it down, much like kilometers, metres and milliometers.

My understanding is that if one were to travel at the speed of light, then time would stop.

The bit I find hard to drasp is time and dates.

Today is the 7th july 2010, 906am. Or is it?

Considering modern time started 2010 years, 6 months and 7 days ago, can we be sure the records are accurate all that time?

After all, the first time recordings were most likely to have been a series of scratches on the wall.

We can look into the past any time we look up at the night sky. The time it takes for light from nearby planets to reach us, then the light-years for our nearest galactic neighbours to reach us; the formation of a star that we view tonight via telescope which occurred eons ago.

Just finished reading the following article:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/05/2944478.htm

""Most of what's in the universe are stars, are all parts of galaxies and the planets are too but in the very early universe before the galaxy was formed it was a different kind of place," he said.

"It's a very tantalising challenge to look back that far in time or that far away in space that we can see things as they were before the galaxy is formed."

BTW

I also believe that there is no such thing as the present, only what was and what will be.

For those who are genuinely interested:

For a few dollars you can purchase an excellent article about time that appeared in the June 2010 edition of Scientific American. See:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion

The author, Craig Callender, is a professor of philosophy at University of California San Diego

http://sciencestudies.ucsd.edu/Faculty/callender.html

No other author discusses the time conundrum as lucidly as Prof. Callender. This is a MUST READ for people who think about time

As some have already said time only exists because matter exists and has spatial change or movement.

However there has been a past in matter as it identifies the state of the present, and it will form the state of the future. Outside of matter there is no time - it is eternal. Eternity is the state where God inhabits Isaiah 57: 15. With God there is only the eternal present. The beginning and the end of all activity in a universe of matter is witnessed perfectly by the Creator and all similtaneously, though He created all things to happen in time and space.

Genesis 1: 1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. [space, matter, time, movement, valence chemistry, light, life and decay etc] all have a purpose in Time - Eccl 3: 1 - 6.

[what did he mean/?]..simply speaking/assuming...both the past/future are mind figments...[the present alone is real...the future is affected by our hopes/fears...

the past is affected by our judgment...but the present..is as real as it gets..[god lives/live-time[now]..all the time

[ie not past/not future...but here...in the ever now...allways did...allways will]

in his own convoluted way./oliver is right in the substance...yet incorrect in its conclusion[the only reality is this/live/ever-now]

to try and correct...where he may have erred...quote/oliver..<<Two observers..cannot simultaneous occupy the same space-time,>>>thus we can observe...now...ORtomorrow...OR...yesterday...but not any/two...at the same time

..<<because the experience of each observer/is particular>>to its...observances...in real time...in real space[here/now...or not here[only that presently...here...is directly/observable

<<..and is related to the independent motion/of each observer.>>.in their live/time/space...now moment

Individuals may..expereince..their..'own'..historical/SENSE of/time, yet..there is noREALised/observance of it/for that time is/past,be it real[now]...or imagined...past...

its a matter of either/or..
your either...here/now...
or your lost in the past/or the future...thus missing it..now

now or future..in an absolute sense....is an eithor...or..which oliver seems to realise,,,in his next post...<<..yet there is no past,..now..or future..in an absolute sense.">>.thus now is the only relitive moment...gods time..not ours[not hours/days/months/years/milenia..etc...

now
just for now

its sad..how often/peepole/say...they
MUST..read sephanie dorkin...sss[who has no clue]

Our senses and our brains are geared for survival, not for experiencing the Truth.

QUOTE: "A recent article on several secular science websites was titled Where Is the Best Clock in the Universe?1 The subtitle summarized its contents thus: “The widespread belief that pulsars are the best clocks in the universe is wrong, say physicists.”

Pulsars (derived from ‘pulsating stars’) are astronomical objects that spin incredibly rapidly, often hundreds of times each second. Each time they rotate, they give off a burst of energy as a radio signal. Pulsars are believed to be the superdense remnants of stars that have collapsed inwards on themselves. A figure skater speeds up her rotation automatically from the mere action of drawing her arms inwards, which reduces the effective diameter of her rotating mass. Similarly, as a star collapses inwards, it would speed up its rotation enormously. So ‘accurate’2 are their regularly timed pulses, that for a long time their ‘accuracy’2 was unmatched by even the finest atomic clocks in the world.

The article referred to the work of “John Hartnett and Andre Luiten at the University of Western Australia” and their uncontested claim that the ‘accuracy’ of pulsars has been exceeded. It states:

“Today, the best optical lattice neutral atom clocks and trapped ion clocks have a frequency stability approaching one part in 1017. By contrast, as more pulsars have been discovered, their timing stability has improved by less than an order of magnitude in the last 20 years. The best millisecond pulsars have a stability of only one part in 1015 at best.”

rehctub,

"My understanding is that if one were to travel at the speed of light, then time would stop."

The allusion of travelling on the beam of light from a clock face is sometimes used to illustrate this point. What is interesting is the expansion of the universe is superluminal. The speed of light in a vacuum (c) is a limit within the universe but not of the universe itself. The parameters of time as experienced by us and the universe appear to be a sub-set a bigger reality.


stevenlmeyer,

Thanks for the references.

You cannot actually travel at the speed of light - we think.

If you travel at close to the speed of light you personally would notice nothing different. Time would appear the same to you. As far as you are concerned you are standing still.

To an OUTSIDE observer watching you whizz by it would appear as as if your clocks are moving very slowly.To him your time would be moving slowly.

Note that to you the other guy's clocks would also appear to move slowly because, relative to you, HE is moving at close to the speed of light.

Hello Philo,

There may have been no beginning, as space and time might not wind back to a fixed coordinate, rather to a non-boundary condition (Hawkins). Moroever, postive energy and negative energy (gravity) have been posited to cancel each other out to zero (McFadden). Here, we have extant complementalities whose solutions are non-extant. Else put, there are somethings from nothing.

Albeit, above, we have not assimilated quatum mechanics; wherein, sentience or conciousness or macroenvronment causes decoherence from a supra-realm to the realm of the time we experience (Penrose et al.). Thus, perhaps, explaining how proteins can be built between an inter-realm nexus rather than have the molecules scuttled by the second law of thermodynamics during their assembly. Herein, decoherence from a series of coherences from superpositions allows more to happen than "our" time shall allow. The building a protein from 32 Amino Acids does not happen in soley in our (macro) universe. Protected from our time chains are bult in the nexus until these are observed from the macoenviroment. Thus, I spectulate durations vis-a-vis time might need us the consider decohence from QM superposition, which suggests to me, selection from superposition to be a moderating phenomenon on the observed universe. Durations are outsources to QM and things appear to happened that seem appear impossible in our expereinced time.

If we have non-bounded realms interacting, there may no be a need for a creating agent. All things exist and cancel out. Csuality and time are diminished in this scheme. Our need to find a first cause is based on an illusion.

If there were a divine entity, said God, I put would not be looking over the life of the univese, as we mortals might see units of measure on a rule.

(To the best of my knowledge no one yet has melded the unification of forces (macro) with QM, so knowledge there is imperfect.)

Stevnlmeyer,

"If you travel at close to the speed of light you personally would notice nothing different. Time would appear the same to you. As far as you are concerned you are standing still."

"We' (material beings) cannot travel at the speed of light, within the universe,as mass would become infinite, requiring infinite energy to overcome the gain in mass. Your allusion to the twin paradoxy is valid at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. If memory serves, at very, very near the speed of light, it is not like Star Trek with stars whizzing past the window, rather stars you have behind you appear in front of you because of the extreme warping of space-time. Happy to be corrected on this, but I think William Kaufman said something like this.

time is relitive[yet in some realms]relitivity is suspended

there are those/..of science-bent..who theorise/of the issue of darkmatter..[being over 80 percent/of the uni-verse],,little realising fact is more amasing than their fiction's

we have/the likes of dick/dorkins...who claims to be..the godhead/of religion of physics...as well..as the anti-christ of religious beliefs...and believers..who claims absurdities..in both this realm/..as well as his/ignorance..of the next

who..dares speculate/that alians founded humanity...as well as his delusions of/evolution via species..into new genus...and other quasi athiest-thesisies

if it all seems/too complicated...know its by design...

so lets try to focus..this topic..space/time

so/lets talk of/the dark matter...that science..cannot explain...or detect..yet dares/to quantify..lol..if only in their theory

here is/the scoop...its..[light]..and the hells...ie/those..who reject the light/..and chose..to dwell in hell's darkness

that its ALL called..darkmatter...is the joke..
for of truth..science has no idea/of the concept..thus are the equivelent/embodyment..of..the blind..leading the blinded..stealing the idea/of religion..as their/theory..of unknown dimentions

so/to shine the light..on the matter of dark-matter
these explain this..'dark/matter'...more than the richard/crainium/dick dorkins does/can/could

Quote:

http://www.divinetruth.info/Downloads/CD/NaturalLove/PDFs/Franchezzo%20-%20A%20Wanderer%20In%20The%20Spirit%20Lands.pdf

http://www.divinetruth.info/Downloads/CD/NaturalLove/PDFs/Anthony%20Borgia%20-%20Life%20In%20The%20World%20Unseen.pdf

more here
http://www.divinetruth.info/naturallovepathdocuments.htm

then the other issues

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=rebutting+evolution&aq=f&aqi=g-sx7g-msx3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

http://www.divinetruth.info/naturallovepathdocuments.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSuewxm7ER8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlw5P-D8tH0&playnext_from=TL&videos=ETbq_5GnJN4

http://www.momentoflove.org -Every person in the world has a heart
http://www.WantToKnow.info -Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups
http://www.inspiringcommunity.org -Building a Global Community for All
http://www.weboflove.org -Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all
http://www.transformationteam.net -

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=keiser+report+rt&aq=f

anyhow..try reading of the first two...then note this issue of..'darkmatter'..has had light shone on it for at least 100 years[its even likely...einstein had enough of an open mind..to have read them]...but dare you

there is nothing to fear/..but fear itself

ps..the links i post..soon get taken down...seems both science/and religion..dont like us knowing...these issues...beyond this/material/time and space..

beyond this realm...they think/they..control..here and now
this short read..even goes into re-incarnation

http://www.divinetruth.info/Downloads/CD/NaturalLove/Word/Jane%20Sherwood%20-%20Post%20Mortem%20Journal.doc

I think it's a shame that we're only looking at this conundrum through the bipolar (have to stop using that horrid word) and dogmatic spectacles of analytic philosophy and theology, especially when Continental philosophy sits between those extremes. Specifically, what about Kant (who also sits between analytic and continental philosophy) and his notion that space and time provide for the sensate "form" of our experience, providing our "pure a priori intuitions," thus making object reality possible. Surely we have to validate this before we evolve our hypotheses?
This seems prerequisite to me, especially apropos the question, "does time exist?" Time and space "form" our "transcendental unity of apperception": self-consciousness; yet it's doubtful they exist in themselves--we seem to agree on that?
So if space and time structure/facilitate/translate/cognise reality for us, our perception is fundamentally intuitive--human. What is fascinating is that QM is so counter-intuitive; if it and other exotic theories can be verified, that amounts to evidence that we do not perceive things as they are (ho hum, I know). But the theory (of everything) that we can finally reconcile quantum mechanics with the gross reality of what we perceive, credulously presupposes the validity of the latter, no?
Perhaps we need to explore more exotic possibilities for the laws of our material reality?
Time exists in as much as it insistently interposes itself within (as a Plank of) our conceptual reality.

"So if space and time structure/facilitate/translate/cognise reality for us, our perception is fundamentally intuitive--human." - Squeers

Yes, space and time are fundamental to intuition. Suspect even the mind requires dimensionality, even if its existence lies in part beyond the neurology of the brain in the observed world.

Our human conception of reality is different to that of a tree or a bat. A dog or a dophin might come closer; yet, prima facie, there appears to be a link between sentience and inituition.

In what sense would time and space exist, if not observed by sentient beings? Do time and space exist in the same manner 4.6 billion years after the Big Bang, than one billion years after the BB, noting there were no second generation stars (heavy elements to create life)? Is the relationship between sentience and intuition complementary regarding time and space?

Thanks for the stimulation, Oliver.
That "even if its existence lies in part beyond the neurology of the brain in the observed world." certainly establishes your credentials as "an open mind" (a rare beast).
"..prima facie, there appears to be a link between sentience and inituition." In fact one and the same?
"In what sense would time and space exist, if not observed by sentient beings?" In themselves? The anthropocentric alternative is Hegel's idealistic trump card--and a return to theology?
"Do time and space exist in the same manner 4.6 billion years after the Big Bang, than one billion years after the BB," Logically no. Do they exist at all, then, if there's a discrepancy in their reality, based on what measure of time? Are you suggesting that time is after all integral to reality? (ergo our senses are felicitous--always a possibility, even likely given we, presumably, adapt to the universe rather than the universe adapting to us; idealism)? But then so is space, and both are formative ingredients in our current space/time. Thus, I think, we arrive at "noting there were no second generation stars (heavy elements to create life)? Is the relationship between sentience and intuition complementary regarding time and space?" Does reality conform with perception; do we live in a materialist universe?
I'll hazard "no," but I don't buy idealism either (not that I'm saying you do). Just because we ideate reality, that doesn't mean we create it, as some would have it. Does it exist independently of us then? And if so, in what form... Oh Gawd!
...Maybe the analytic is the way to go :-)

Thanks Squeers,

Please excuse brevity:

1. Though still speculative there are theories involving QM and that counscious is a field.

2. Yes, sentience could be one and the same. Moreover, sentience and conscious have been put to bring reality in to existence. Though no expert, I more for the idea of decoherence from QM being achieved properties of assebly are large enough to be recognised by the macro-world.

3. Anthropocentrism would link to truth with Hegel and yes the nature of truth has religious implications. On the other hand, when dealing with Gegel, I needs to check first to see if he was referring to the metaphysical or the corpeal. Perhaps, some Marx's dialectical materialism was drawn too much metaphysical notions.

4. I agree a universe with 4.6 billion candles is different to the early universe. In 1 billion, there was no one to blow the flames (except, except for the theist, the alledged same God, who watched the Quad)

5. I think time is complemented by superpositions (QM) and that durations in observed time be underpinned by other phenomena which permits all those probability/change equations that seem to (erroreously) suggest the universe too young for life. We are here.

Something happened/is happening. Perhaps, in a QM or enjoined realm. We live in a (macro) material unverse but it does not follow enjoined realms do not influence us, because QM-Our Reality might work via a semi-permiable seam.

6. If sentience is tacit observation of the explicit, we would need to recognise that as individuals' peceptions cum intuitions are personal, which would beg the question, "if consciousness brings the universe into being, is it "exactly" the same universe for each individual, when tacit and explicit knowledge are held to be co-efficent and indivisible.

7. As alluded to above, I suggest we perceive a materialist universe, yet, akin to Newtonian vis-a-vis relativity, day-to-day we don't see the full construction of the material universe, where things are happening outside of common experience.

Cheers.

Oliver & Squeers

I am enjoying this discussion very much:

>> we don't see the full construction of the material universe, where things are happening outside of common experience <<

Many cosmic trees may be falling 'out there' or even 'in there' lacking a sentient observer.

oliver/quote..<<..In what sense/would time and space exist,..if not observed by sentient beings?>>on a purely practicle level...a sense..implies..a sentinant/being...able to sense...not cencor it

ignoring a non-sense...and going by simple practicalities../expanding on the tree/falling...[action]...its re-action...crashing sound,is more likely...than unlikely

[it would be impossable to disproove
[given the same conditions...in egsistance...now

i would note that the bigbang...was such a min-ute/event...yet huge affect..[its own occurance..could not have been...a bang...

[lets face it...all matter/..all 'reality'...was presumably...'inside'...this/let there be light moment

[light would convey beyond..the limitations/inherant of the big bang]..that would nessistate..the exclusion/of sound..beyond its bounds...as there is no..'matter'../beyond it..to convey it

further...this huge event..would have distoprted...time..and space...[in affect..there is no observable 'event'..beyond the light..till something...like matter..began to form/out of it

ditto...nothing to diferentiate time...except events that signify..a new stage...lets call these event/periods days[for want of a better word]..so each'stage/change..becomes one day..[or part of a sequence..that constitutes ..a..'day'

[god..[he]..being spirit/is not matter..[we]

so me..[i am]..ie..[he]..is looking...looking/looking..then

let there be light/then..let there be firmament...
then life...[3 days]..please note the light thing..is recorded in the bi-/two...-ble/books...TWICE

the first..is the big silent../let there be light/thing
the next the sun..that sustains life...

when you think of the primates..that wrote that stuff...they got it pretty near....what science..is only stagering toexplain/..to-day

<<the relationship/between sentience and intuition>>..is NOT complementary/thus not relitive/not com[aring same/same

same..regarding time and space?

sentance is aware-ness of fact...usefull in observing fact..and logic
intuition..[in this realm]..is a feeling..predictive/feeling

im against/the joinder of space/time..for much the same reasons..they are buzzwords..that in affect..create joinder..[effect]..between a reality..[all be it one/not personally observable nor measurable...

joined to an artiface of specific measure..
not even constant in its sepperat..measuring units

compare time..seconds
to distance..in light years
space is a thing..[a ruler/maybe a thing...but a measuring/unit a constant/..but not a'thing'

[ps..space is not a vacume]
we replicate..'space''.here/on earth..via a vacume

but space proper..cant be a vacume..
or it would suck us..off...the face of the earth...

[and clearly/were not being sucked off!]
well im not at anyrate..not sure about you

Dear Severin,

Agree: Time is a really interesting opic.

Roger Penrose maintains that there is time assemmetry in state vector reduction in jumps to the macro realm, from the QM realm, even through the two "ingredients" quantum theory and general relativity are each time-symmetric. I find this a curious prospect and wonder if there is any relationship with an experiment which suggest QM entanglements with consciousness, wherin a suggest is asked to press a button at will. What happens is there is as much as a second of measured activity in the brain before the "at will" response occurs, suggesting something is determining "free will" to some extent. In this context, there is a lapse of time in our realm, which is posited to interact with quantum calculations. Herein, it would be interesting to know; if any assemmetry in state vector reduction creates the intuition/perception of the passage of time?

Oliver

If memory serves, wasn't what you described an experiment on Catalyst recently, where the decision was made in the subconscious BEFORE the conscious decision, meaning that a person could be predicted in an almost "Minority Report" scenario? Which is the "real" person the subconscious mind or the conscious mind? There was sufficient "time" to read the intent before the subject had made a conscious decision.

Does time only exist in relation to events?

Severin,

Hi. I didn't see that Catalyst. Must have been a good episode. Even decades ago, Michael Polanyi (chemist cum philosopher) gives an account of classical condition like experiment, where the stimulus is too weak to be perceived consciously, yet conditioning occured.

It could be argued (in light of recent and not so recent theory) that to talk of consciousness and the self is philosophically naive. Hegel's notion of spirit is, in it's final dialectical stage, a comprehensive enlightenment that excludes individuals. The Buddha too considered individuality the final illusion to be overcome. Jacques Lacan posited the subconscious as "structured like a language"--in that meaning is perpetually deferred rather than traceable to an ego referent--the ego is the differential.
I have a recent book by Thomas Metzinger (in the field of "hard science" and analytic philosophy) called "The Ego Tunnel" (2009), in which the author says "I will try to convince you that there is no such thing as a self. But it is not just that the modern science of mind and cognitive neuroscience together 'are about to shatter the myth of the self'. It has now become clear that we will never solve the philosophical puzzle of consciousness .. blah blah blah" (my emphasis).
Note the revelatory rhetoric about "shattering the myth"! And there is no mention in the "index" of Kant, Hegel or any of the other enlightenment (or counter-enlightenment: Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, right up to the postmodernist) philosophers who have been all over this for 200 years!! Metzinger adds insult to injury by saying, "The best philosophers in the field clearly are analytical philosophers", yet his "clearly" is not attached to any forgoing argument that establishes the fact! Pure hubris. But he has the running in the popular mind--we drool (uneasily) over his mastery (that is his self-assertiveness) of the topic s/he reinvents!
Science and analytics don the robes of the prophet, but all they have is join the dots or plagiarised data. Oh Sh!t! revelations.

Squeers

Your post leads me to consider just how much our personalities are mere constructions of chemicals and electricity. And how malleable the brain is. Which in turn leads to the claim of "there is no such thing as self".

Look at how a person can turn from Jekyll to Hyde after a single drink of alcohol and not be aware their personality has radically altered.

I posit that we can be many selves, particularly when under stress.

I do believe that meditation can assist with 'steadying' the state of balance in the mind - uniting the fragmented mind.

Good point, Severin.

I'm also interested in our experience of time when we are sleeping - and what happens to our experience of self in the dream state. does the ego get thrown out the window? Why does our dream "mind" allow us to accomplish feats that would not be accepted by a conscious mind?
We've all experienced the feeling of being asleep for a few minutes, yet (in that short space of time) had a dream that seemed to have endured for hours of days. Why does time seem to be warped between the two experiences, yet both of these emanate from the same mind at he same "time"?

we do have time..to smell/the roses...so saying..i follow/the lead..away from/topic;..time...and return to..'space'..[knowing/it will come-back..and/...bite me

squeers/quote..<<..he has/the running/in the..popular mind->>is such a strange..turn/of phrase..[to me..'he'..is the unity of mind/..god/pop-u-liar?

so;saying..read;..the context/of..<<-we drool..(uneasily)..over his mastery..(that is/his..self-assertiveness)..of the topic..s/he reinvents!>>>it seems/every truth..needs a lie/..bal-lance

i guess..im reascting/in the abstract.to the...<<.. his mastery..(that/is..his self-assertiveness>>..[ok..i know its not/what squeers meant..but post/more..in reacting..as if he did it..in full mind..not by accident/nor 2b/popular

it is men..who use such concepts/such as assertivness/master/popular...
god as such...cannot be comprehended..in terms of master/popular/assert/etc...but more..in the way of the servant..[or in the mother...as in mothering..not smothering

unlike science..[hopefully..in context/quote..<<Science and analytics..don the robes/of..the prophet,..but all they have/..is join the dots/or plagiarised data.>>.that some-how became....


Severin,..quote..<<Squeers/..Your post/leads me to consider..just how much..our personalities/are mere constructions..of chemicals and electricity...And how malleable/..the brain is...Which in turn leads to the claim of.."there is no-such/thing..as self".>>

so i will expand..on the chemical/electicity...bit/..by saying...our minds are of concious...and un-concious..though/that is a falicy[emoting and passion/..is closer...but would far/exceed my brief]

<<Look at how/a person can turn..from Jekyll>Hyde..after a single drink of alcohol..and not be aware/..their personality has radically altered.>>as swedenberg describes...as well as/my previous links

that mind/we claim..is a reciever/emmitor..of emotions...where//'like attracts like'...

see when we feel love...we attract to us/lovers...when we feel lust..we attract lusters...murder attracts murder'ers..etc etc..our mind/body/../the spirit/dis-embodied

drink/lowers..our inhibitions...it is knowable..that drink..subverts the concious..allowing..the half mind of pasion to rule..over our mindfull/concious..[in the next realms...it is this mind/of pasion/emoting..that rules..

anything we do/attracts..like passion..to us...our thoughts/are like food/energy..for the dead..[our anger/attracts..the angry..who fed/..get/gain..energy ofF..our vile/but matching/their/vile thoughts...

so much so..they can gain control/OVER..our bodies/via..'our'/minds..to do their vile/here/in the flesh...

its so/true<<that we can be/many selves,..particularly/when under stress.>>or other high-emoting/feeling..[or worse..non-feeling..which allows/the mindless..to assert/their will..over us/ours

I do NOT..believe/that/meditation../mindlessness..can assist..with.'steadying'..the state of balance..in the mind...FOR THOSE REASONS..^!

far from,<<uniting/the fragmented mind.>>>they subvert our lives...into full-filling..their[others]spirits..very mindfull..vile

remaining in control...
is a very important...act/of..our conciousness/mind

[if your not..'in charge...
using your life/gift/person/body..others will...

i thought..it was/important/for you..to know of this...at this time

Severin:
<Your post leads me to consider just how much our personalities are mere constructions of chemicals and electricity. And how malleable the brain is. Which in turn leads to the claim of "there is no such thing as self".>
Nevertheless, I reject reductionist explanations such as biological determinism, though of course I accept that we are influenced by these. I prefer to see the self as subjected to and contingent upon myriad biological/materialist influences, and steeped in cultural discourses; yet equally I reject cultural-constructivist notions of the self (or that the self is merely epiphenomenal. I don't see the self as 'real' in any measurable or essential sense, but I do see its spontaneity, or persistent unpredictability, in all the circumstances, as self-determining at base.
Thus I'm equivocal about Rabelais's 'carnivalesque'; Whitman's "I contain multitudes"; Bakhtin's 'heteroglossia' and Kristeva's 'intertextuality'. I acknowledge all this discursiveness and that there is no real kernel within; yet the self is original: the universe has produced meaning with time and space.

OUG,
You can use God as the transcendental signifier if you want to, but for me that's necessarily derivative or contrived, as the case may be.

Poirot,
in my experience of the 'self in the dream state', it can take various forms, indeed I'm rarely if ever the body I see in a mirror. Yet whatever I metamorphose into, there's an abiding sense of 'me'; which, however, somehow is not divested of corporeality, yet is divested of time: dreamstate seems weirdly spacial, yet atemporal. Curious..

Poirot, Squeers, Oliver

Do any of you have lucid dreams? Where the 'self' has more input than in normal dreaming.

In my 'normal' dream state my 'self' could not possibly have been the 'me' I am familiar with, given the action in which I was involved.

Simply put, as we are here in this point of space and time, are we not greater than the sums of our parts?

UOG

I do not intentionally ignore you - however, your 'self' does not exist anywhere close enough to my 'self' for a mutually satisfying discourse.

Severin,

I once had a dream, where I knew I was dreamming, and, where I debated with another person in the dream, about which one of us was a confabulation and would not exist in the morning. With this dream, as with others, there was a sense of self and sense of other.

In the waking world some sense of subject and predicate is necessary for us to function. But said realisation is unnecesary for a blade of grass.

Hegel's dialectic (Squeers) requires the arrangement of that and another. Likewise,separation is required so actions can act elsewhere from the Self. SEld allows engagement with the environment

Severin,
yep, I lucid dream a lot (very common I think). What impresses me the most about dreams is that it seems very much a shared reality rather than just my confabulation; that is, that the other characters that people my dreams seem to have compelling and intricate characteristics (physical and idiosyncratic) of their own, such that my sense is I "couldn't" invent them. I've had dreams I honestly feel "I could not have had".

Oliver,
I'm afraid your last comment, and most of the list you posted earlier, are a rather cryptic? Not that I'm asking you to elaborate, unless you have the time and you want to. Of course everything we all say, no matter how laboriously we say it, is cryptic. On the other hand, as Jung once said, "the worst thing that can happen to a person is to be completely understood" (though I think I can think of worse things :-)

Hello Squeers,

Sorry to be vague. I have been toggling while working on something else.

The Self provides separation from the other, as in an English sentence, "I gave spot a pat". Here, "I" see myself apart from spot, grass does not. Synthesis cannot be achieved unless thesis and antithesis are distinct (Hegel).

You mention Jung: Jung saw the Self as a mid-point of personality around which we build an archetypes. "If we picture the counscious mind with the ego as its centre, as oppoesed the unconsconscious, and if we now add to mental picture the process of assimilating the unconscious, we can think of this assimilation as a kind of approximation of conscious, where the centre of total personality no longer coincides with the ego a point midway between consciousness and unconsciousness" is sought, wherein, the Self is a goal towards which we strive, motivating behaviour. Consequently, a truer sense of self might not manifest until middle age, as the person shifts from the conscious ego to the midway point between the conscious and the subconscious. Well, that's what Jung thought back in 1945.

More modern -out there- theories would include the notion of the Brain having an em-field (electromagnetic field) with quantum mechanical properties. Herein, the physical brain is layered into automatic unconscious functions (physical electro-chemical) and conscious functions (a wave function). Perhaps, it is with the latter, we again see consciousness entangled with time - In the weird theory at least.

Squeers

I don't 'get' people who claim dreams are boring.

Your comments have reminded me of serial dreams. Like a TV series in my mind.

Like you I have dreamt up 3 dimensional people I have never met - yet are completely detailed.

I also have a running dream which is set in Melbourne (where I live) but it is different to the 'real' Melbourne, but consistent each time I dream about the other Melbourne to the point now I can remember streets, railways, road networks, landscapes - like an alternative Melbourne I guess. I am often aware that I am dreaming this alternative city (this is where the lucidity comes in) and can sometimes guide the narrative, though not always.

As for being completely understood - I am sure we are not in danger of that, there being excellent chances we will talk at cross purposes at some point in the future. I do that all the time with other contributors here. How people of equal intellectual ability can view an event completely differently, putting the lie to the "eye-witness".

Now I am thinking about how I have used "future" and "time" in the above context.

Oliver

>> Self allows engagement with the environment <<

Without which we would just be reactionary and fail to learn and have no sense of linear time?

Severin,

I was about to post something about my own serial dreams.
I tend, for the most part, to visit new places when I dream - houses and villages or townscapes. Sometimes I visit places that I have lived in waking life, but most are dream inventions.
My most interesting dreams (which occur often) are when I visit a town or village, seemingly completely invented, that is new to me...and then I find that in subsequent dreams that I revisit this invented landscape or house or neighbourhood. I have revisited invented dream landscapes like this many years after have originally dreamed of them.

Squeers,

I've noticed "compelling and intricate characteristics" also in my dream characters and my landscapes - idiosyncrasies that I would have been hard pushed to invent in a work of fiction by my conscious mind.

Poirot

>> "compelling and intricate characteristics" also in my dream characters and my landscapes - idiosyncrasies that I would have been hard pushed to invent in a work of fiction by my conscious mind. <<

Extraordinary isn't it? The most recent 'serials' have been the Melbourne dreams. But have returned to completely fabricated landscapes from dreams long past also. And don't I wish I could capture the colour and detail in my writing? You bet.

And all this takes place in mere seconds or minutes of real time?

I often wonder what animals make of their dreams, we can clearly observe the twitching of paws, little growls or grunts, do animals remember their dreams and do they, like us, understand that the dreams are part of their sleeping life?

Hi Severin,

"Without which we would just be reactionary and fail to learn and have no sense of linear time?"

Yep. Like a plant.

On the other hand, only a small part of our bio-mass is conscious and appears to understand the environment. Albeit, the unconscious and the autonomic respond to the environment: e.g., the petellar reflex. Our knee is subject to time, but is not conscious of time. The neo-cortex might be another case. While the knee might be physically reducible to the QM world, perhaps, only the Mind could engage time, brought about by observation

Oliver

Thank you.

How each of us interprets the reality around is no doubt unique. However, I am not of the philosophical theory that if I was not here to observe it there would be no reality. I find that a rather centrist construct.

We have only two planes of observation the waking and dream, that does not mean there are not more - like colours we only perceive a specific range, we require augmentation on the form of apparatus to observe the ultra-violets and infra-reds. Just as our brains have only evolved to conceive of the finite, we cannot encompass the idea of infinity, even though we may use infinity in calculus, it is not a number and cannot behave like a number. Does time ever stop travelling?

Severin,

When I was a child, one of the most interesting mysteries of the mind for me was the discovery that my mind couldn't conceive "another colour" (outside the spectrum). I realised that it could conceive the notion of another colour, but not the colour itself.

Oliver,

Looking at the awareness of time...
Could it be described as our way of dealing with/measuring/ describing the interchange of particles of matter as we experience the phenomenon of them moving through space? So, ii is not an entity in itself, but more of a tool that we devise to augment our participation in the constantly changing environment?

severn/no worries about our non-discourse...though by the sounds of it[re dreaming/more specificly..recalling your dreaming..you could be closer than anyone/in confirming the truth/or faulsity of much i am trying to make known/..personally..i recollect very little of the dreaming...taking much on faith

im currently reading through the sequel/of..gone west[where the dream realm is exlored[other-wise known as the astral plane..it explains much of the why melbourne/of your dreams is different

available pdf/form
http://new-birth.net/booklet/Subaltern_Spirit_Land.pdf
the gone-west..is the best read
http://new-birth.net/booklet/Gone_West.pdf

unsure about this one..[but copied it first/accidently..syncronicity?
http://www.new-birth.net/booklet/BlueIsland.pdf

anyhow...as your possably not interested/i mearly post the link...just in case some have after death questions
http://new-birth.net/books_life_after_death.htm

[if only you and squeers could see how close you both seem to be]..but such is the way of spirit...lol[just as youth..is wasted on the young...lol]...in but a few years you might think differently

it took me more than half my life to realise/science was a big con...then15 years to realise religion/much the same...then found the gone west...and it all fell into place

[the first link..actually explains evolution...but as i know science dont know..will need to finish the book/..first..[even if it does confirm/evolution...im sure dorkins et/al...still have no clue

anyhow...im not disapointed you havnt replied me/i dont take things personally..[im used to being the outsider]..everyone i know thinks im strange..thats why im slowing down/..my self appointed mission

in gods time..not mine...i trust the right/persons to find the info...of some asistance...the key being in all this..is if its not good/not of love...its not of god

[however you concieve him to be...]
if its not full of..grace/mercy/love etc...its not of god

one under god,

Thanks for your input to this thread...I read your posts and find they have an ethereal quality.

thanks..Poirot...but any/..<<ethereal quality.>>is co-incidental...made/in ignorance

..to explain..many have/these'certainties'..when the certainty is/..relitivly..'made..in ignorance'...or by imp-lied/concensus..or simply by others..not providing an opposing vieuw-point

take time/..for egsample...its too easy to talk..in minutes/days years...but they are an/arbitory..measure

[like a day on mars/../or venus...or the sun...maybe divided into 24 unit hours...but these will be far from the 60 earth minutes...that designate...'one hour'..here

its much the same/with evolution/claiming to be science...yet unable to verify its claim..by presenting this science...
thus it is rightfully..only a theory...

all im doing is asking/for..their science...knowing they dont got none

[which opens the point..of...what are the alternate/theories..which arnt being considerd..or more importantly...why not?

i see that/..its all theory...some think/to know.
..others seek to know..

for those/claiming science...one would expect..an open mind...but instead we find religious like zeal...holding fast..to their faith...in which they have invested..their belief

its not hard to see/that new variaties of beasts...have appeared/in time...or over time...but we do not know..the how/why..of their creation....nor does science..!

[they were all..created..because real/science has studied their..'creation...from living sperm/..living ovum...to complete..'creation'/..be it beast or man...truth is why...god/or father/nature..did it..remains beyond our knowing

the fact remains...that to this day..science has not made/..its own living sperm...has not made/..its own living egg/ovum...yet blisfully allows children to believe they have

i hold the same authoritive/ignorance..up to the faulse beliefs/of religions..

there is..a timeless/collective/one-ness[atonement]...we call god..that is the organising..force of the universe

[unseen...much like electricity..is unseen...
but knowable by his affects...[life/gravity...light/love..grace mercy...logic/law...constance/mundane..as well as the exceptional]..

yes/we cant concieve/..the oneness...but there is a unity..if we so chose...
and the more we know..the less we know for certain..[ie quantum mechanics...

its much the same/as argueing with a child..who recieves gifts from satan/clause..or money from the/ester rabbit..

who have their certainty..via grand deception...not faulsifyable/consistant/replicatable..fact

but sadly/one of gods rules..is let he who would be decieved/remain decieved..till they seek/know..to ask the right question/...

why?..it validates freewill...

/god...is/an all loving servant/parent/good...content to simply..let us have..our life...on..our...*terms/..as we understand/know..it to be..our/life..not his..his gift to us

Poirot,

Interest concept.

In physics the nature of the reality of a particle is unclear, wherein one cannot measure the position and velocity of particle, and, there is dualism between the particle-form and the wave-form. This means that it would be hard for an observer to relate his/herself to particles. Nontheless, observation would permit QM decoherence. Yet, it appears common place for us to macro sized objects like the chair I am sitting on and the keyboard as I type.

Observation also appears to relate to the means of measurement. For example, one can block the passage of photon with two polaroid filters placed at vertical and horizontal orientations. However, if a third polaroid lense is added in between the two rotated to 1 o'clock, 6% of the light will come thorough. In a similar vane, some physcists have suggested that the twin-paradox at the speed of light is incomplete. The retuening twins would not only have differenr ages there clocks would run at different speeds, even after they met again (probably a minority opinion)

oliver/quote..<<..it appears/common place/for us..to macro sized objects/like..the chair/and the keyboard.>>>to apear...and feel...as if a solid..'sub-stance'

BUT/we know its..all just affect...[the reality is/that we are feeling..the/AFFECT..of orbiting electrons/neutrons..wiZZing arround their atom/or atoms..etc

as...FEELING..solid...real...BUT/

yet/..the reality being..
there is a lot more/of nothing..
than there is..either atom or electron..etc

we feel affect...
reality/..thus only..'feels'..real...

relitivly speaking..even the feel...is via a few scatterd/sensory senders...sending/their messages..to the mind-collective..

that assumes..the affect/..as real...
but we dont/even know how..this collective..'feel's...let alone determines..that real/..from that sureal

<<Observation/also appears/to relate..to the means..of measurement.>>

but observation is only/one of our senses..[by what measure..do we percieve..that our senses..reveal/true...to be..'real'...

its all subjective..[by what constant measure?..is this/theory..more real/more valid..than that sence or measure..]

but by verifyable/faulsifyable..factual/confirmation and replication[repeatabilty]of constants/sureities

<<block/the passage..of photon..6% of the light/will come thorough.>>ahh..light being a particle...yet released by a specific event...thus a particle...AND a wave...

THUS/does not have..a single origin point

you raise/an interesting point...its said the/other..[aether realms/..lie a few degrees/off center..neither..directly up/or down

[an affect/noted in prayer...the elivation of eyes..induces..spiritual affects

<<the twin-paradox/at the speed/of light..is incomplete.>>just to..add

my thoughts...'light'..has many spectrums...does red/light..travel at the same speed..as the longer and shorter wavelengths..[is speed of light'/spectrums..constant..regardless of the wave-length's..that makes it up?]

<<there clocks/would run at different speeds,>>is a theory..[what affect weightless-ness on the timming mechanism]..

but this is/one of the destractions/..by which..the science godheads/..keep us amused...and destracted...

even/if we knew...what affect..it give us/..
is ONLY bound on earth

why not speculate/on the other theories...
that frighten so many
DEATH WHERE IS THY STING..!

i would value your feedback/on the small read...the blue island/link oliver..[im half way through it..in only half an hours reading]...

there is/one timeless problem...
you lot/can resolve..in a few hours

..<<even after/they met again>>...in the next realm?

<<(probably a minority opinion)>>..yep...

but a short read/can solve my conundrum..
please read and critique..its not simply a minority..there

but is here..mainly because..we are so attatched to the/unsolvable riddles...or are afraid of knowing/..?

we are immortal...not im-mortal

fraid of knowing god=good..all living...all loving..
the real/underpinning real-ity..

the natural/under pinning the timeless nurture
..../this time..please read*/re-vieuw
http://www.new-birth.net/booklet/BlueIsland.pdf

Oliver,

I was definitely referring to our "macro-sizing" of the world around us. Our use of the time concept as a tool of thought enables us to rationally accommodate the sequence of movement and change that we encounter...perhaps...

Piorot,

We surly see change. Do you remember the clothing window Rod Talyor (?) sees from his Time Machine. Also, the change of seasons for us. We also expereineca forward progession of time.

OUG,

In QM I think any of the sense would be valid to quaify as an observer, perhaps, even a blind ameoba.

The polarisation of light thing in my last postwas higher condensed and hard to present in a few hundred words.

Severin,

I think time stops as the speed of light. Space-time can be warped. Colour vision is added by rhodosin and various species has diferent rhodosin set-ups. We (and other primates) are trichomats (i.e. three hues). Loss say one hue of rhodosin of or diminished rhodosin leads to colour blindness. Interestingly, colour blind people can see sometimes though camaflage. I read once, turtiles have seven hues of rhodosin!

Oliver,

"We surely see change...We also experience the forward progression of time."

Absolutely - time is what we call it when we experience the sequence of change...seasons, growing, etc...anything that alters.

Poirot,

What you report is psychological time which seems to flow forward and is experienced. Pychological times appears to be consistent with the increase in entropy in the universe. Physics sometimes explores alternatives.

Oliver

I had actually meant to write 'does light ever stop?'

But one can posit the same question regards time. And I have enjoyed your response.

Time can be a sequence of events. If nothing changed; would a stasis mean no time at all? Is time a beginning and end, therefore an encompassing term for the inevitable entropy?

However space/time may be skewed by gravitational pull, such as the forces of a black hole? This means a sequence of events can be completely altered. Meaning at some point in time, when our own galaxy eats itself, I never existed or I may exist simultaneously in various event sequences.

UOG

Science is about asking questions and seeking answers such as we are doing in a very limited fashion on this forum. You present as knowing all the answers with your claims that science is a "con". That is quite a conceit on your part.

To all, I have always wanted to see the environment through the eyes of a raptor, such as an eagle, but would settle for a turtle.

:D

Serein,

The light in the photo, at the following link, left its source 13 billion years ago, when the universe was only about 380,000 years old. Goggle COBE universe if you what some background.

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/more_images/cobeslide28.jpg

It is suggested that time has a begiining and its smallest unit is Planck Time (10 to the minus 43rd power of second, I think). Space and time are bundled (4-D) and in very, ver, very beginning the first unit of time may not have been definitive.

As noted above, the arrow of time seems to be forward for psychological time and for the second law of thermodynamics. "If" there is a Big Crash after the Big Bang runs out steam, would time run backwards? No. The contraction would commence with a higher (more run down) state of entropy.

The behaviour/realisations of something falling into a Black Hole depends on one's relationship with how one experiences/observes the BH.

Offline for a few days.

oliver quote..<<..Physics sometimes explores alternatives.>>>lol

yeah some-times..they may/if the peers allow it
or are the peers are prepared to fund it

and if the media sees fit to publicise it
or a book publisher deems fit to print it

then if the reader can comprehend it
it still raises more questions than answers

what is this thing called time...is a timeless question
a child can say its a clock..or a calender
the mindless can say its a measure

the physisist can say its all relitive to space/time[a totally diveregent topic]...so lets say we know that time is hours...like the time it takes to read a post or the time it takes to read the blue link..

no matter how much time..some wont even take the time to consider alternatives..let alone reply the simple questions..raised by the issue of the empty space...yet filled with alternate realities..completly free of time and space

its funny how people quite seriously debate the small things
but with the big things prepher to return to the ignorant/child time..and trust our fearfilled peers

anyhow i guess some like the knowing/others like the pretence of knowing...and yet others...well who cares they are all insane..everyone knows eternity has no measure

oh-well nothing to learn here
thanks for the fish...they reek...but dont put..a gift to your nose

you can lead a hoarse to water but cant make him think
can he smell the dead fish/floating upon it..i wonder

why does pearl before swine come to mind
/some are simply pig-headed?

others simply hate to think

Oliver

Thank you for your patient answers to my Physics 101 questions. I have enjoyed the challenge of understanding the points you have made and most, importantly, the non-judgemental method by which you responded. And am fully aware of how 'out of my depth' I have been in this discussion.

UOG

The biggest issue that I, as a non-religious person, have with religious is the propensity for the religious to believe they have the right to judge others and the complete disregard as to whether their unprovable beliefs are relevant to whichever topic is being discussed.

Please consider, one significant difference between science and religion is that science evolves, religion is as caught in time as a mosquito in amber.