Conversation
Notices
-
My new goal in life is to create a time paradox.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:24:50 UTC from web-
@commodorecrazycommanderofthe1stroyalbrigadeofspiceracksandcheese time is an illusion. All that exists in reality is the present.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:26:54 UTC from web-
@pony then every reality is seperate since any given point in time is unmoving creating a different reality.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:28:51 UTC from web-
@commodorecrazycommanderofthe1stroyalbrigadeofspiceracksandcheese It sounds like you're assuming that any given point exists within time, but what I'm saying is that all points exist together outside of time. I don't really understand what you're saying there.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:33:42 UTC from web-
@pony The thing I don't understand about time is that more or less it was a man-made idea to track change, until some smart guys in the 20th century showed that it apparently is something that existed before we made it, so it's like ponies who are named things that eventually become their talent or cutie mark
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:36:07 UTC from web-
@crusader8 That's one way to look at it I suppose :) I suppose that foresight is possible when we're able to see through the illusion of time. What doesn't seem plausible to me is time travel (unless you count existence in the so-called "timeline" itself as time travel).. We simply exist in the moment without past or future, and our present state (identity, location, thoughts, actions, etc.) is what we choose it to be albeit we' limited by our surroundings.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:42:14 UTC from web-
@pony The "time is an illusion" notion, while certainly poetic, is actually not scientifically true. There is a such thing as the smallest physical unit of time, known as "Planck Time". It's fascinating stuff.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:47:00 UTC from web -
@pony Why is time exactly an illusion? Time measures change in mass and energy, and since the one constant in our universe is change, time is what we use to measure and describe the discrepency between different states of the same object in question.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:54:26 UTC from web-
@crusader8 That is a good question. I guess that by my logic both time AND change must be an illusion then, a very interesting concept. Then by my logic maybe our perception of change and time are a filter through which we make sense of our current moment or state of being.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:57:49 UTC from web-
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:00:00 UTC from web
-
@commodorecrazycommanderofthe1stroyalbrigadeofspiceracksandcheese 'current moment' is just a term I use to describe existence. There is no "was" or "will be." There simply "is."
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:01:05 UTC from web-
@pony Again, a poetic notion but not one which has any basis in scientific fact.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:04:04 UTC from web -
@pony Then wouldn't that mean there is never another moment? Just one? Also, if there only "is", what happens when something ceases to "is", for lack of better wording.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:04:52 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@pony WIBBLY WOBBLY TIMEY WIMEY STUFF. I'm saying that the present changes by the smallest value we assign to time. Every one of those values is independent of the other, so a realty exists in every one of those values, making every reality measured by that value of time seperate. Personally, I like the time moves in branches theory, easier to understand and allows for paradoxes should time travel be discovered.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:40:21 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:43:49 UTC from web
-
@commodorecrazycommanderofthe1stroyalbrigadeofspiceracksandcheese hmmmmmm indeed....
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:48:21 UTC from web -
@commodorecrazycommanderofthe1stroyalbrigadeofspiceracksandcheese on second thought, if I see time as choices creating branches, then that would call for at least two timelines that could be considered alpha.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:48:27 UTC from web
-
-
@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.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:49:28 UTC from web -
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:54:36 UTC from web
-
@commodorecrazycommanderofthe1stroyalbrigadeofspiceracksandcheese @crusader8 in any case there's something to be said for the perception of time, whether or not it exists. It is important to us, but I feel it's important also to understand the limitations of seeing the universe as strictly defined by the passage of time and change.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:59:38 UTC from web -
so @pony you prefer to think time doesn't exist because of the variable scales in which it can be scrutinized (which ultimately is just an argument of measurement nomenclature when certain converted denominations seem less significant) and @commodorecrazycommanderofthe1stroyalbrigadeofspiceracksandcheese you offer time branches out, although that line of thinking isn't compatible to the nature of time measuring when matter was like so and now it's like that. I think when both of you think of time you're thinking of clocks, repeating periods and annuals. The record of time is not time itself. If we didn't record time (aka historical documentation) there wouldn't be a lot of the ideas and theories of time which border more on the philosophical.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:04:08 UTC from web
-
-
