Timelessness is a meaningless concept

Jump to Last Post 51-80 of 80 discussions (233 posts)

0
Uirikposted 12 years ago
In the equation of surface

1)g = f(x,y,z)

where g = const, we have a scnenario where t is not in the equation. It can be for instance the equation of a sphere. We call it a static scenario. Because of this, x,y,z here acts as dimensions.

For the equation

2)G = f(x,y,z,t)

where G = const to be something similar to the equation 1 above i.e for time to be on the same par with space, it must also debict a static scenario.

We now have a frozen scenario of 4d space where equation 2 describes the geometric structure of a 4d object.

At once, the real concept of time comes in but as tau and not as t as in when do this setting exists and how is motion realised?

An attempt to avoid tau is only for 2 to already contain the real time but 2 will thus be a dynamic scenario and t is nolonger on the same par with x,y,z hence not a dimension of space! 2 can best then be termed as a graph! And not a geometric object.
reply report
0
Uirikposted 12 years ago
The aproach of relativity was to reject static scenarios first. If you were moving inside a train which itself is inside a huge sphere stationary relative to a certain observer, of course you will measure the sphere to be static if signals from all portions on the surface reach on you at the same instant. Not so for the observer on the train, he may as well see a dancing sphere. This is what they call space like and time like. Ie what is judged to be statically separated by one observer is dynamically separated by another observer BUT
reply report
0
Uirikposted 12 years ago
BUT wether two objects are statically separated or not is not an issue of knowledge. It may or may not be wether we know it or not. This is why I said dimensions, (regardless of their number) are CONCEPTUALLY static. We don't PROOF them to be static but we CONCEIVE them so. We don't bring proofs at conception stages. It is irrational! We don't proof that balls are spherical, we conceive them so.
reply report
1. 53
  LoGanthnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are going to need to define what you mean by statically separate and dynamically separate. And tau, for that matter; I was completely lost when you brought tau into the picture in the previous argument.
  
  Further, by the argument you made the days of the week cannot be described as spheres, closed surfaces or whatever. You set t to be a constant, but monday is not a constant point in time--it is a considerable interval of time. The two are significantly different.
  
  Finally (if you don't mind my asking), what is your physics background?
  reply report
0
Uirikposted 12 years ago
Longanfather
you are right that in mathematics we don't define certain terms but we don't loop back and learn any thing mathematically about them ie we don't deduce anything about them. We use them to deduce other things.

In physics, we can overcome this obstacle by illustrations in the real world, a realm prohibited for mathematicians. The undefined terms cannot form the centre of a theory because by not defining we assume that the hearer knows about them. So it is irrational to loop back and explain the undefined word back to the hearer in a way different from how he understood. It is at this point that the presenter absolutely must define the word or shut up and go! It just brings confusion. Mathematicians know better they don't form such loops!
reply report
0
Uirikposted 12 years ago
Longanfather
setting t=const=monday in equation

G=f(x,y,z,t)

means that monday is the end of the interval t=0 to t=monday.

A static separation is the separation that does not change with time.

A dynamic separation is a separation that changes with time.

I used t as what is shown on a clock and you know clocks can vary its reading or even stand still but tau is the real change in time in your mind when measuring with a clock.
reply report
1. 53
  LoGanthnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's what I thought you meant by static/dynamic separation. But then it doesn't make any sense to apply this to dimensions. How do you describe dimensions as statically "separate" from one another? And whether or not we classify it as a dimension of distance, time is irrefutably a dimension. It is nonsensical to claim that the dimension of time is "static", meaning that time does not depend on time.
  
  And once again, monday is not a well-defined point in time. We do not, nor should we ever, use the convention "t = monday". I asked about your physics background because you speak as a person who is familiar with physical calculations, but your notation is extremely sloppy and imprecise.
  
  And finally, back to geometry for a moment. We agree that points and lines are undefined concepts in geometry. But you say we therefore do not "loop around" and learn anything mathematical about them. I believe the opposite: almost everything we learn in geometry is about these vague notions of points and lines. For example, when proving theorems about triangles we are really drawing conclusions on the lengths and angles of various lines. And though it does not *rely* on physical phenomenon, euclidean geometry is based on and inspired largely on the real world. Non-Euclidean geometry is the first break away from intuitive physical geometry.
  reply report
0
Kihruiposted 12 years ago
Loganther
You asked?
'How can dimensions be statically separated from on another?'

No! I didn't say this!

My chief goal is merely to be understood and not to say GR or SR is wrong! It goes this way;

If n objects are statically separated, then the axis along which they lie is by definition, a SPACE dimension. I have no problem if you call time a dimension as long as you don't call it a space dimension as ceciliabeltran was calling it, or a dimension on the same par with space. OK?
reply report
0
Kihruiposted 12 years ago
Loganther
stop critising my notations and start getting busy understanding my kindagarten language.

'Monday is not a definite moment in time'

Let us disect this assertion

Conventionally, monday begun at a certain, definite moment in time call it t0 and ended at another definite moment in time call it t1. Sabstitute both t0 and t1 in equation

G = f(x,y,z,t)

And we get two equations

1) t0 = f(x,y,z)
2)t1 = g(x,y,z)

So monday becomes nothing but a mathematical solid bound by two mathematical surfaces 1) and 2) above!
reply report
0
Kihruiposted 12 years ago
You see, GR's explanation now proceed.

You know, gravity phenomenon is equivalent to the phenomenon being in an accelerating frame of refference. But if north pole was acelerating while south pole was doing the same, the earth would have bursted long time ago! This was what made Einstein to say the earth, along with space, is moving but along a fourth dimension of time 'at a constant velocity?' Since space (i call it an object) is curved towards the forth dimension, equal intervals of time will not intersect with space to give equal intervals of space hence an object like you who thinks he is moving at constant velocity in time (going to the future?) will be forced to accelerate to the earth if it must remain in space. Good explanation BUT
reply report
0
Kihruiposted 12 years ago
But unfortunately we need another time to conceive such motions along a fourth dimension. You see, bringing GR to this discussion was extreemly irrelevant as my arguments proofs nothing to a genuine physicist because he certainly knows what the phrase; change in time reffers to in his equations. It is just but the amount of change in a physical quantity during the time. Futher than that, a physicist knows nothing better than a kindagarttener about time!

In regard to my solid monday, it is the amount of duration of monday actually which is measured as time it takes a mathematical solid to cover its thikness as the solid is pictured to contract and varnish in the centre of the earth. The stronger the gravitantional field, the faster such an entity contracts so it is said time ran faster near the earth when actually it is the entity which drives clocks to ran faster.
reply report
0
Kihruiposted 12 years ago
Let me illustrate for you what physicists mean by 'change in time' as expressed in their equations and see how irellevant was the introduction of physics to this discussion We learn in physics the meaning of 'change in time' in primary school and not in universities!

Change in time in physics is defined righorously for one second.

1) 1 second: the time taken for a given entity to cover a given change.

Newton could have defined 1 second as the time taken for a certain pendulum to make a complete swing.

You see, physics has to deal with tangible objects. Time in its pure form is just a concept which cannot form the physicist's center of attention.

All what Einstein was to bring to physicists was a reminder that time, as it apears in physics equations was the amount of change in physical quantities and thus it can ran slowlier, seem to do so or even stop which is obvious since every event we choose to define the duration of 1 second is governed by the laws of nature. It was not that time can litterally seize to exist or slow down or ran faster definitely! And so Einstein said Newton talked of absolute time but did not consider how to determine it. It is not that Newton was wrong but only that the absolute change in time have no way of being expressed as a number (as in 10 what? Goats? Pig?)
reply report
1. 65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Time is measured by OUR concept of time which based on the 24-hour period of a day and a night. This is t as a standard of measurement but relativity is dependent of the point of observation. Meaning that the experience of time as it flows in a linear fashion is relative to the position of the observer in relation to the light cone. So you can say time dilated or slowed down based on the 24-hour period standard.
  
  I remember that they have found proof recently, let me look for the link.
  
  Here is one:
  
  "Flat universe
  
  The geometry of space-time can distort structures within it. The researchers studied observations of pairs of distant galaxies orbiting each other for evidence of this distortion, and used the magnitude of the distortion as a way to trace the shape of space-time.
  
  To discover how much the galaxy pairs' shapes were being distorted, the researchers measured how much each galaxy's light was red-shifted — that is, budged toward the red end of the visual spectrum by a process called the Doppler shift, which affects moving light or sound waves.
  
  The redshift measurements offered a way to plot the orientation and position of the orbiting pairs of galaxies. The result of these calculations pointed toward a flat universe.
  
  Marinoni and Buzzi detail their findings in the Nov. 25 issue of the journal Nature.
  
  Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/ … ZLR3"
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Baloney. Time does not "flow in a linear fashion", whatever that means, nor is it dependent on the "point of observation" whatever that means, and you as the observer do not observe time slowing down within your own reference frame. It is your own clock that ticks normally and it is the clock of another observer who is moving relative to you in which we observe time dilation compared with your clock.
  
  Sorry, but that does not follow at all. You posted a link regarding the cosmological constant. How does that explain relativity and time dilation?
  reply report
0
Kihruiposted 12 years ago
Ceciliabeltran
And why do you get angry when we debunk that which is not your opinion but what dead men decided for us long ago? Whom are you calling stupid? Have I dised you anywhere? Why do you read my stupid posts? I know arrow of time is Hawking's idea and we are waging war on you personally if yours was just to remind us about it. We are debunking the idea wether it is established or not. In science, there are no untouchable truths.
Kiriu
reply report
1. 65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What? I have no idea what you're talking about. Who is angry at you? Nobody is angry at you.
  
  I am merely debunking a claim that timelessness is a meaningless concept because it has meaning.
  
  I am merely supporting my argument by introducing an established theory of time.
  
  So if you want to debunk the established theory of time, do so in another thread or with equally compelling counter theories that will make everybody in this thread smarter by .0001%.
  
  Saying it isn't so just because you don't like it doesn't hold any weight in my book.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Where? You have done no such thing other than provide some Foxnews.
  reply report
  65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, like foxnews is a crackpot too. What or who have you ever quoted? None, absolutely none...
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't get my information on science from Foxnews like you do.
  reply report
0
Kihruiposted 12 years ago
Well it will take eons of years to convince people that this was not an issue about relativity. It was strictly about qualitative time not expressible as a number that i was talking about and i never knew that many people thoroughly cannot differentiate the two! And so cannot answere my earlier q, is timelessness meaningless? They think that I am debunking or talking about Einstein's, maxwell's and Newton's mathematical time which I had no interest with it at all here. Iwill illustrate the two meanings of time below. Pleace open your ears.
reply report
1. 59
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps, the question is meaningless?
  reply report
0
Kihruiposted 12 years ago
Einstein
concratulation! You also realise that 'flow of time' is just poetry masquandering as physics. But then illustrate why the q might be meaningless.
reply report
1. 59
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, my userid is Beelzedad, not Einstein.
  
  I probably could, but so far, the OP has failed to show the question has meaning.
  reply report
  65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Its meaning is not clear to the OP. "Timelessness"by definition means
  
  time·less (tmls)
  adj.
  1. Independent of time; eternal.
  2. Unaffected by time; ageless. See Synonyms at ageless.
  3. Archaic Untimely or premature.
  timeless·ly adv.
  timeless·ness n.
  
  The concept of eternal is unmeasurable which is equivalent to the meaning of infinity.
  
  It has meaning. He is just not very clear about it.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm impressed with your ability to copy for the purpose of clarity.
  reply report
  65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  when YOU copy though, it does not have the same effect.
  reply report
0
Kihruiposted 12 years ago
The difference between qualitative time I talk about and the mathematical time goes like this; when velocity measuring with a stopwatch, we compare two changes; change in distance and change in the angle swipped by the clock arm. Before we measure, we are first certain that equal 'CHANGE' IN TIME is taken for both events. this is what I call qualitative change in time. We can't know how long it is! We only know that it is equal period for both the ticking of the clock and the motion of the object.
reply report
1. 59
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That does not present a problem at all because a meter is defined as "the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second" consequently, precision measurements of the speed of light yield a precise realization of the meter.
  
  reply report
0
Kihruiposted 12 years ago
If we say we know the qualitative duration, then it begs the question that the clock calibrators knew how first the hour arm moved but how and yet there was no earlier clock? They just agreed to call it 1 second and that was all. So we can calculate the angular velocity they defined. All what physicists detect is change in location. Time is always read out from the brain. A mature physicist knows that velocity is unitless in strict sense. It is change in distance/change in distance with the qualitative time,'during the same period of time,' being murmured in the brain only and not appearing in the equation. So the true change in time is a quality and not a quantity!
reply report
0
zampanoposted 12 years ago
Bang Bang Theory...
Like I shot my baby down ?
There's another theory called the "Bunga Bunga".
reply report
1. 0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ponders asking what Bunga Bunga is...
  reply report
  0
  zampanoposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's just a joke.
  reply report
0
Kihruiposted 12 years ago
Ceciliabeltran
of course you make sense when you say timelessness means eternal or agelessness. Your apeal to 'established theory of time' is baseless! Better start thinking for yourself! You haven't answered my question whom did you call stupid in you reply after Jomine's post? Eh?
reply report
1. 65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry, but I don't remember your question...lemme review the thread and if I called you stupid I apologize. There is only one person here who I can believably accidentally call stupid and it is definitely not you.
  
  on the one hand, the established theory of time would be that it is a dimension of space, hence the term spacetime. it is pretty established. Is it being challenged? Not by Stephen Hawking. To this day it is still called spacetime continuum. So to say that it is baseless is actually a stretch. "established" means it is generally accepted by the thought leaders in that field, taught in universities, etc. etc.
  
  Time as a concept is the flow of events, the experience of duration and we measure this using the 24-hour time period as a standard for purposes of coherence.
  
  What is a concept? It is an abstract idea. It is when a thing's patterns are used to symbolize similar patterns. For example, the concept of a tree can be used to describe for instance the branching out of children and children's children in a family tree.
  
  So timelessness is NOT a meaningless concept. because the concept exists and holds deep meaning in our language. time, as in the duration of space as we observe it/experience it, can be transcended. some things can be timeless.
  reply report
0
just_curiousposted 12 years ago
I bet if you could ask a rock it would be able to give you a handle on the question.
reply report
1. 65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  henri cartier bresson said something about cats and photography...i think I mentioned that to you before.
  reply report
81
Jewelsposted 12 years ago
Great topic and one where the meaning or experience is missed by many. I say experience because when doing long term meditations, only when you are out of the ordinary 'linear' mind do you get into states where timelessness exists. Paradox!

Timelessness could definitely be seen as meaningless if you remove all concepts of being wound by time and tides - cycles. If you can change your life experience to one where there is no clocks, no influence of the calendar, Sun/Moon, day/night then you could contemplate life without a rhythmic existence.

Timelessness is a sense of nothing and as has been said before, when you put something into nothing there is a beginning of something and once removed, there is an end. In the existence of nothing (paradox) there is timelessness. In a meditation state, this would be the experience of complete stillness void of any outside influences. Only when you come out of this state do you understand you were in it, because when in it you have no concept of time. It's a real mind blower! Literally.

You could add the normal logical rational intelligent concept to what I've just said but it would be like a mind f**k, which is often what happens when contemplating physics. It's one of those states that is misunderstood because it's not experienced. Once experienced you get it, but try explaining it to someone and it's a fruitless exercise.
reply report
1. 65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know what you mean. That experience has been observed in buddhist monks and it really really does harmonize the brain in ways that is exclusive to the activity of meditation.
  
  You just reminded me what I need to do. I really let myself get dragged down to the concrete. This is an interesting take on the subject matter. More often liberation is reaching that level of transcendence in meditation, even for just ten minutes, its a great relief.
  reply report
0
Twenty One Daysposted 12 years ago
Explains why my sex life @ Nova was nothing short of 'i've had better' and my scores off the charts. Thanks Jewels, now I have the answer to Cecilia's question as to how we ever 'got some' being such geeks.

James.

What is true though is in order to understand physics, a lot of meditation is required, and sometimes Jameson or at least a refreshing Pilsner.
reply report
1. 59
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's not true at all. Hard work and rigor are required, not just sitting around letting your imagination wander aimlessly.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  really? hard work and rigor you say?
  Your point sounds like a job, as a blue collar laborer, working in exploratory oil and gas.
  
  I find physics quite easy to engage, explore, learn and understand.
  Once observed, meaning the "e e l" (mentioned above) and the sum-substance, meditating on that is quite uplifting and results in much understanding; Not at all difficult, strenuous (requiring hard work) nor rigor (excessive use of brain/body power).
  
  Such an attitude that breeds "I'm smarter, better than you, because I worked harder and more rigorous than you" is silly for anyone to do or even consider. I believe the theists call that laboring in vain.
  
  As for "aimless" imagination, you are incorrect. Take the likes of the Wright Brothers, Aristotle, Hume, Degas, Blake, Mary Daly, James Prescott and countless others, who, had they not "aimlessly" imagined, would not have contributed so much to the wiles of humanity. That is the purpose of imagination, to fulfill the quest of knowledge: application (understanding).
  
  As said, this is perhaps why I preferred to spend more time with the sum-substance then boning ( or in your case hard work n rigor).
  
  James.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ]
  
  Can I then conclude that hard work and rigor is not something you're familiar with or have ever engaged?
  
  LOL! Good one!
  
  Yes, those theists who never engage in hard work or rigor would most likely take that attitude, that is is silly.
  
  LOL! Another good one!
  
  That is only too evident.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As said before, [Marcus], you are getting boring.
  Tongue in cheek, hissing fuel, does not make you a better human. Coy, yes. Validated/vindicated/justified, no. If fact that kind of behavior makes you redundant. Conclude whatever you wish, I have done my 'homework' and continue daily, without excessive effort, to gain knowledge ( and in some cases understanding of that knowledge ).
  
  Please, ( yes, I am being mannerly ) as you so obnoxiously --err delicately-- request of others: be accurate when making egregious or contingent statements; do not pretend you have some semantic or esoteric physics understanding -- without posting so much as a single, complete white paper (or even a relative paragraph) you have written on the subject.
  
  As for theists, which is your only fuel it seems, may I suggest not picking that scab on your head, lest it bleed all over you, again?. Unless of course you're 'into that' kind of hedonism, then by all means, enjoy.
  
  James.
  reply report
  59
  Beelzedadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I can see you are quite successful in that regard.
  reply report
  53
  LoGanthnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  James:
  
  Now, I am not agreeing entirely with what Beelzedad has said. Certainly, much imagination and creativity was necessary for such innovative thinkers as the Wrights and Blake (actually, my favorite poet). Let's limit ourselves to physicists just for now; say, Einstein and the photoelectric effect. He used his imagination in producing a new idea, yes--but not necessarily in learning the physics itself.
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you got a minor in physics. This is all well and good if you are looking for a basic understanding in physics, or a strong understanding in only one specific branch. But perhaps the nicest part of getting a minor is the ability to pick and choose precisely the courses you would like to take. This may have contributed to the fact that you found physics "easy to engage, explore, learn and understand." I firmly believe that a person cannot complete a full degree in physics without throwing their textbook at the wall at least once.
  
  To return to the issue at hand, I think the process of learning physics requires more of an open mind than a strong imagination, and that the two should not be confused. I don't think I have ever associated physics and meditation; from what I have heard, meditation is about closing yourself from the world, not the reverse. Not to say that people should never meditate, of course.
  reply report
  81
  Jewelsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's actually not altogether true. There are modes of meditation, and you are right, silencing the mind is definitely one of the major achievements of meditation, not necessarily closing yourself from the world. There is a difference. But I won't split hairs. It's important to experience it to make comment.
  
  I believe there are perhaps more meditators able to converse in quantum physics than quantum physicists able to to speak of meditation experiences. Except of course those that assume meditation is about imagination. It is not. If all one does in meditation is whirl around in their imagination, they are not doing it right! A silenced mind is not one that delves in imagination. It is silenced and views states of consciousness very differently than incessant thoughts.
  
  In the expansion of consciousness and consciousness awareness there is indeed the need for an open mind, not a closed one.
  
  It is also known among the stalwart meditators what timelessness is like from an experiential standpoint.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I would wager to say, that image was the actual learning of a physic fundamental. As I have said often, humans already understand the entire physic universe (they were created to understand it). Humans have either forgotten it entirely or perverse it using their own limited shreds of thought, in this present stasis.
  
  Hmm, no need for correction. My minor was in Quantum Field Theory with a few blips into Mechanics. My bread-n-butter was/is Applied Philosophies...
  
  As aforementioned, humans do know. Once a person comes to the place where they realize it, learning becomes easy. Learning is simply remembering what we already know. This is why one human can 'teach' another, and agree. They 'enlighten' each other to information that was genetically programmed into them; that humans would not create "faux" things like wireless communications, libraries, churches, laboratories, telescopes, etc, etc to express something they once knew and were fully able to understand, engage and most importantly enjoy!. Humans do not really remember who they are, why they are. To compensate, they have "made" all these "things" that in some form express their understanding of what they --in fact-- once knew. They call it education, learning, transcendence, euphoria, epiphany, discovery, yada yada yada.
  
  Show me a mind that can exist without imagination. They are one in the same.
  
  James.
  reply report
  53
  LoGanthnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Someone here is a fan of Socrates...
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Wells", I "Kant" say I'm not a fan of Socrates. But we must always remember to "Plato" and most certainly keep our sense of "Hume", lest we "Descartes" our passion, "Locke" horns and become " Archimedes."
  
  -haven`t used that line in quite some time. woop woop!
  James.
  reply report
  61
  Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You sound like the philosophical equivalent of a computer geek.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  thanks?!
  reply report
  65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  spot on!
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, that's it! I'm pulling out the anagram encyclopedia. Now you'll all be sorry! (echo distant wicked evil laughter)
  reply report
  65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  what? you can't be serious.
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  09 43 43 16 29 30 11 55 30 16 16 07 04 43 77 99 30 55 13
  
  13 32 16 22 39 32 43 77 99.
  
  99 = w
  
  James
  report
  65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  okay, this doesn't make sense unless you want me to translate this to phonics...do you?
  lemme see...I'm lazy. what's this?
  report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ALL THE PRETTY FLOWERS
  
  SAT IN A ROW.
  
  (i think there was a type-o
  report
  65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Did you do it through hebrew and translate it or was it phonetic english? I cant understand your coding system.
  report
  65
  ceciliabeltranposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  nice, you should have reserved this for the book.
  reply report
  0
  Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
81
Jewelsposted 12 years ago
I have to add (cause I can't help myself )that in the context of a meditative state, timelessness is very meaningful - it's huge
reply report
61
Jo_Goldsmith11posted 12 years ago
You are so right. My husband has constantly mediated at least once a day for over 30 years. Meditation is about freeing and clearing your mind. Getting rid of the junk that is there. I have taken up the practice. It has been helpful in all area of my life. nice writing! I bet you meditated before you wrote this! :-)
reply report
1. 81
  Jewelsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks Jo.
  reply report
61
SaMcNuttposted 12 years ago
There is a past and future and there isn't a past and future. There is a present, ever present that sums both past and future, but cannot be either. The present is always on the line of both, ever present. Present is a circle without end and the future and past come to the same.

Existence on earth is determined along a short strand within the circle, but the pre eart existence and the after existence is undetermined.

We are confined by time, but as something is when put in a box, once reaching its limits breaks the box and flees, or is smothered like a candle with little oxygen.

The fact that there is time is in itself timeless, because the measure of it never changes, only are limiting thinking changes our view of it.
reply report
0
L.K.kiruiposted 12 years ago
Timelessness of course has a subjective meaning in that you can experience a situation of no conception of time. I think here, there will be no conceptualisation at all. Now think about this; for someone to conceptualize a lack of experience of time, he do so such that the lack not only occurs at a certain moment (from objective angle) but it also must occur over a period of time for the experience to exist at all. We conceptualise the non existence of the lack of experience of time as there being no moment in time during which someone is lacking the experience of time. Hence we absolutely need the concept of time to conceptualise 'timelessness!'

kiriu
reply report
0
L.K.kiruiposted 12 years ago
Now, the situation is just like that of velocity or changelessness in general. Many say that without motion, there is no time. But we realy need the concept of time to conceptualise a lack of motion. We say that a billiard ball is motionless if it is at the same position in space at two moments of time. Otherwise, the concept of motionless will be meaningless!

Without a duration, we cannot describe an object truly as motionless. In an ideal snap shot, there is no difference between a stationary object and a moving object. It is only in a movie(i.e. with duration) do we differentiate. in mathematical terms, 0/0 is not equal to 0 as it deceptively apears it is meaningless. so if all objects are motionless, we also say their velocities equals 0 and also distances equals 0. we cannot also say there is no time because that will amount to there being a change in time equal to 0 . so you are saing velocity 0/0 is equal to 0!
reply report
0
L.K.kiruiposted 12 years ago
Time is analogous to the dimension of space. Time is to events as space is to objects. Relativists brings in a confusion by ascribing characteristics to space and time instead of the apropriate objects and events. Perharps they should have talked about events objects continum. Empty space is not something it is a lack of something. That is how we conceptualise there being nothing. The brain draws an empty space. So a lack of space requires another space to conceive of which 'space' now turn (conceptualy) into an object filling the entire space. Einstein even admitted this when he talked about ether for he knew that 'curvature' cannot be ascribed to emptiness.

Like wise the nonexistence cannot be ascribed to emptiness. The meaning of nonexistence itself. Not only is it necessary for there to be space in which nothing exists, there must also be a period during which there is the nothing otherwise the situation will not have occured at all.
reply report
0
L.K.kiruiposted 12 years ago
There is a reason why i say physicists should stick to events and objects instead of space and time. This is what they study. You see, we cannot put an empty space in a physics laboratory and study it. Try it, remove everything in a laboratory comletely including rulers, clocks, etc and then study the space. I bet, you will come out of the laboratory as foolish as you entered if not more. Infact all concepts. By the time you hear a physicist talk about relationship between pure concepts like space and time, you know at once that he has crossed bounderies! In mathematics, it is correct to say there is relationship between hatred and death. Not so in physics. What kills is strictly a bullet and not hatred. This is a basic difference between physics and mathematics. A genuine physicist, (no matter how few they are) talk of distance moved by object, distance statically seperating objects and legth of the object instead of talking about 'space' completely of itself. Then talk about time taken by an event instead of pure 'time'. He does not place concepts on a laboratory.
reply report
1. 0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What is the point? The religionist.. er! relativist are delusional and they are never going to understand even the basic stuff!
  reply report
0
L.K.kiruiposted 12 years ago
Jomine
yes, one characteristic of religionist is not leaving all preconceived ideas from 'masters' and thinking through an issue for themselves. The 'masters' convince them not to trust their brains. You know, it is beyond your understanding. You know, our master was 'genius' i.e. a god. We need to assume that we have never heard of any theory sometimes.
reply report
0
L.K.kiruiposted 12 years ago
Lone77star and sembj
non existence isn't a time issue? The universe exists now. It didn't exist then. It didn't exist at that time different from now. Chair does not exist it can exist(conceptualy) at one time and not exist at another time so more information is needed. We just don't say a chair exists or does not exist. We say a chair exists all the time, a chair exist at a certain time, a chair does not exist at any time for all the eternity i.e does not exist at all. God exists for all the eternity i.e all the time. A square circle does not exist at any moment throughout the eternity. When we speak this way, we get a clear picture of the scenario. Now a million dolar question; don't you understand my above statements and how i use time in both existence and non existence issues? Not that things need time not to exist but us need time to conceive non existence.
reply report
0
L.K.kiruiposted 12 years ago
Ginjill ashbery

'timelessness is a mind thing'

i cannot even think of a better way to put it than you did in your comment! You just hit the nail on the head. That is just what i have been trying to say. Thanks a lot.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Timelessness is a meaningless concept

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Timelessness is a meaningless concept

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies