Conversation
Notices
-
I really like to think about paradoxes.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:52:08 UTC from web-
@commodorecrazycommanderofthe1stroyalbrigadeofspiceracksandcheese oh I see. That way of looking at time brings up the quandary of how we're able to both exist and progress at all though. If time may be said to be divisible into infinitesimal units then, given any finite number of those units, they invariably add up to nothing so it might be hypothesized that, if time existed in such a manner, then we'd never move forward in our existence. One way to reconcile that with the fact that we do appear to move forward may be to assume that, for any given (infinitesimal) unit of time, we exist for an infinitely long period of time so that the effect of moving forward can actually occur. But that seems over-complicated to me, so I prefer to think of time as not existing at all.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 08:54:31 UTC from web-
@pony So, in essence, what your saying is that since we have no exact definition of how time works, or even if what we perceive as time is a real thing, we attempt to understand it through language, which has the potential to lead to a lot of misunderstandings?
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:01:26 UTC from web-
@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.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:04:08 UTC from web -
@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
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:04:27 UTC from web-
@pony We can transfer factual information, but a substantial chunk, if not all, of knowledge is understanding gained through personal experience and the ability to apply your personality to what you know. Therefore, when you die, even if the factual information is passed on much of the meaning is lost.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:06:19 UTC from web-
@aeniug2 I'm not afraid of that. My ideas are simple and when
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:07:51 UTC from web -
@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.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:09:01 UTC from web -
@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...
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:22:40 UTC from web-
@pony Yessss that is very close to how I choose to understand time... But then... Like you said... In our current state of development as a species we are focused on what is going on immediately around us, and are therefore not capable of actively observing time in the manner that you described, but we are capable of understanding it as a concept...
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:30:31 UTC from web -
@pony You can say that, but then there are fossils. These exist in spite of whatever our perceptions of time may be, and provide a verifiable and consistent record of the history of life. We can look at soil layers and rocks and see the history of our planet. We can look up at the sky, see to the edge of the universe, and by measuring how far away it is we can identify when what we are looking at happened in the past- the event we are looking at happened long ago, it's in the past, but we are looking at it today because the light from it is only just now getting here. These don't seem to sync up with what you propose.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:34:05 UTC from web -
@pony that argument relies on time being just a depiction of when you are on a calender essentially. The future doesn't exist, sure, but the term is there to describe growing discrepancies between one state of matter/energy and the next, but the past is simply the placeholder for starting points from which you measure time. It all exists but when you mix up time as a refernce and time as a clock you'll breach the wrong walls.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:34:25 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
@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
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:11:16 UTC from web -
@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.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:23:52 UTC from web-
@crusader8 lol... social troll indeed. Anywho, you make good point about the development of literature.
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:33:44 UTC from web
-
-
@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 ^_^
Sunday, 18-Mar-12 09:39:22 UTC from web
-
