Conversation
Notices
-
@toksyuryel I know it sounds far-fetched, but is a simple record of the current timeline (including my memory of the alphabet and language used to recodr it) really proof enough to say that time exists as we perceive it?
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:09:15 UTC from web-
@pony well... assuming that time does change, how do we decide what a significant measure of it is? In the grand scheme of things we are just a blip. On average, we probably don't even exist.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:10:33 UTC from web-
@aeniug2 that's another issue in itself I suppose. I for one believe that whoever and whatever exists must exist infinitely (from forever previous to forever in the future) and in all possible dimensions.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:12:13 UTC from web -
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:15:30 UTC from web
-
@aeniug2 It's 4:15 am here, and even later in your time zone if I'm not mistaken. Thanks for bouncing ideas around with me!
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:16:45 UTC from web
-
-
@pony It's not proof, because proof is a mathematical concept. What it is, is evidence. Science alone can never prove anything, but what it can do is compile enough evidence to make a compelling argument for why something is as it is. And the evidence for time is overwhelmingly compelling. Consistency is the key factor that makes it all work.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:11:50 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel Ah ok. I see what you're saying then. Thanks for clearing that up. I've enjoyed this discussion. My "time is an illusion" hypothesis has been rigorously challenged, and I've enjoyed it!
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:14:15 UTC from web-
@pony It is a great discussion, I'm glad we've been able to have it ☺
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:15:09 UTC from web
-
-
@toksyuryel going off on a bit of a tangent here: I agree that the evidence for time is overwhelming... but... urg... how to put this..... The time in which we exist is just a blip, and might not even exist outside of our understanding of it. So. Time might exist for us in this instance of reality merely because we believe that it exists... In the grand scheme of the universe of what have you, what we perceive as a large amount of time might not be significant enough to even be considered to exist, despite it actually existing. For instance. What if, some time in our future, mankind discovers another sentient race who's perception of time puts us in that not-really-existing margin?
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:17:03 UTC from web-
@aeniug2 @toksyuryel This is what i've been trying to get at. Yes. Granted, I think it's in our best interest to act according to the reality we perceive now in the moment so to speak, and that includes drawing on information from records and our memories, etc.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:20:09 UTC from web -
@aeniug2 @toksyuryel but yeah... time has no guarantee of actually existing.. all we have is compelling evidence, as was said.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:21:17 UTC from web -
@aeniug2 Actually we can measure the smallest possible physical unit of time. I mentioned this earlier, it's called Planck Time. Whether this is or is not in fact the smallest possible unit of time is unknown, but as far as we can tell it would appear to be. More generally, if it can be measured it must exist in some way. But an inability to measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that we haven't figured out how to measure it yet. This is getting confusing so I'm going to end this post now, I hope you get whatever it was I was trying to say here because I no longer know myself.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:21:38 UTC from web
-
-
-
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:21:59 UTC from web
-
@aeniug2 @pony Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:22:54 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel I approve!
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:26:07 UTC from web
-
-
@aeniug2 it absolutely /is/ ironic. That's why I like to hope there's a higher power looking out for us.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:23:00 UTC from web -
@aeniug2 By the fact that we exist at all, I believe that we must someday come to realize that we also exist on a higher plane. Like a point on a line does not truly exist except only in theory, and similarly a line within a plan, a plane within space, and space within time, we do not exist unless we exist on all possible dimensions.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:30:32 UTC from web-
@pony Several years ago I actually came up with my own hypothesis for what those dimensions might be. I wound up at 7 total, numbered from 0 to 6 and with the curious property that 6 and 0 were the same dimension. It is very abstract and I haven't a clue how one would go about testing it, but I still feel like it's beautiful somehow.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:32:48 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel That's pretty cool! I'd be interested in hearing that.. It kind of reminds me of String Theory.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:35:15 UTC from web-
@pony Funny you should mention that, considering my hatred for string/M theory is what prompted me to come up with it.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:36:10 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel y u no like string theory?
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:37:20 UTC from web-
@purplephish20 Because they don't know what the word "dimension" means.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:38:14 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel Your idea that the 6th dimension would also be the 0th dimension also reminds me of hypersphere theory and, for that matter, the organisation of the heavens according to Dante's Paradise.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:42:51 UTC from web-
@pony That would be rather interesting, indeed.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:44:20 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel Dante wrote about how creation and all 9 spheres of heaven were contained within God's abode (the Empyrean) yet the Empyrean was, at the same time, at the very center of the heavens. Some scientists have theorized that the universe may have exactly such a form, hence hypersphere theory.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:49:33 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel of course scientists leave out the teology part..
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:50:18 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
@toksyuryel lol! well there's irony for you I suppose.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:38:02 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
