Replies to aeniug2, page 17
-
@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.
-
@aeniug2 Sleep well! Thanks for the excellent discussion ☺
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 10:30:31 UTC from web -
@aeniug2 it absolutely /is/ ironic. That's why I like to hope there's a higher power looking out for us.
-
@aeniug2 @pony Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej8u-gU
-
@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.
-
@aeniug2 @toksyuryel but yeah... time has no guarantee of actually existing.. all we have is compelling evidence, as was said.
-
@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.
-
@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!
-
@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.
-
@aeniug2 yes, including our memories and the way we perceive time itself for that metter.
-
@aeniug2 Mentioning hope always reminds me of Pandora's Box and how so many stories get its intended meaning wrong when they try to reference it.
-
@aeniug2 Yes, exactly ☺
-
@aeniug2 Unfortunately the incompleteness theorem being true precludes the blank being filled in both fully AND accurately- you could get one or the other, but not both at the same time. A tricky problem to solve.
-
@aeniug2 This was a pretty great interview, if you haven't seen it yet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXh9RQCvxmg
-
@aeniug2 @commodorecrazycommanderofthe1stroyalbrigadeofspiceracksandcheese @toksyuryel So without any real prrof that I "was" or "will be" I'm only left with my perception of the present, that I "am."
-
@aeniug2 @commodorecrazycommanderofthe1stroyalbrigadeofspiceracksandcheese @toksyuryel so where was I? Um.. I guess you could say there is no 'next' moment or 'previous' moment. There's just our perception of any given moment as it relates to us, and that moment may be infinitely long or short.. For whatever purpose, we can only perceive one moment at a time (what's known as the present), and our perception of that moment happens to take place on what we perceive as a timeline. We're wise to consider our perception flawed however because experience tells us that, where there are gaps, our minds fill in the blanks and try to make sense of what is or isn't. It is because of flawed perception that I opened my mind to the possibility that time doesn't exist, and, when I delved further into introspection I found that, while I possess memories, I have no guarantee that my memories are real, and, while I have expectations for the future, I have no guarantee that they are real either.
-
@aeniug2 X3 Hello then!
-
@aeniug2 If it has no evidence it's not a theory, just a hypothesis. Spend some time working on it though, you never know when you might be onto something and even if you're wrong that's still a step forward- knowledge is gained whenever you try something, even if it isn't what you thought it would be. Don't get discouraged ^_^
-
@aeniug2 shall I get the fire to prevent your regeneration bonuses, you social observatory troll? lol but seriously think we're proving the "can't transfer knowledge" idea because I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about observing things about myself, and being able to make educated guesses on behavior, personality and reasoning of other people whom I observe finding themselves in similar scenarios I've encountered myself. It's also not to predict just patterns or similarities, but also to hypothesize contrasts as well. In my opinion it's the next step in literature's growth, because for the past hundreds of years writing has been about relating outside things to oneself over and over.
-
Pony
Aeniug2
, Commodore
, Crusader 8
, toksyuryel
@aeniug2 @commodorecrazycommanderofthe1stroyalbrigadeofspiceracksandcheese @crusader8 @toksyuryel I think, scientifically, the theory of relativity begins to scratch the surface, but (in terms of we all understand) essentially my notions don't mean much to science, at least not now. I feel there will come a time (or in other words, the state of mankind may be) that our scientific notions align accurately with the true nature of time, change, and existence. To clairy, let me give an example. According to my theory, tomorrow and yesterday both exist now. We perceive the past as passed and the future as not yet come because we're focused on a singular facet of our existence which we perceive as the present. Ack! my computer is majorly derping right now.. lemme restart my browser...
-
@aeniug2 do you learn things about others as a direct result of your self-observation, or are you observing yourself to learn about yourself? Both are important but one is under-appreciated
-
@aeniug2 I word them right they're hard to screw up. Like I told my fellow brony, "one day I decided to stop learning about myself by observing others and start learning about others by observing myself." You'd be amazed the results this line of thinking can yield.
-
@aeniug2 I'm not afraid of that. My ideas are simple and when
-
@aeniug2 language, while useful and again important, is one part of our barrier to understanding the nature of our existence and our perception of time. Some philosophers argue that it is impossible to transfer knowledge, and I think I agree with them. We can only, by language, invite others to discover truth for themselves.. but that's another topic entirely
-
@aeniug2 But since we have no real facts to compare our language based descriptions to, it isn't really possible to tell whether they are misunderstandings or not, but the important thing is that we have a high enough level of understanding to grasp the idea that our understanding of concepts such as time through language can be flawed.
-
@aeniug2 lots of theories come from analogies because analogies and it's easy to confuse a well-worded depiction with a sound idea. Perceiving time anything beyond its simple nature is a common mistake because of our ability to empower ideas with words to shape them into seemingly palpable truths. Words allow us to make something sound as true or as false as our chosen words allow, which is why it's so easy to get wrapped up in phrasing leading you into poorly conceived ideas. It mostly comes from our most basic skill in learning; we try to relate to persons places or things we observe in order to achieve a new understanding or perspective.
