The eternal NOW

a reply to: miomo

Why did you bring a hypothetical question like the one posed into this thread ? If you are trying to make a point about the nature of time, why don't you just say. This is not a thread on mathematics.

p.s Have you ever tried to work out a mathematical problem when drunk! I can barely work out the measurements for my Margaritas.

a reply to: DrunkYogi

Because for 3 pages I have to watch you literally make # up.

originally posted by: DrunkYogi
a reply to: bb23108

To truly live in the present one must be released of all identification with the body-mind, including all perception, conception, and even attention itself. Identification with the observer is still of the mind, and thus still an experience of the past.

There is no identification with anything bb. Just passive awareness of events rising and falling.

You guys literally just talk about nonsense # and the first guy to not understand what the other is saying, because its just made up bs, loses. I asked a plausible hypothetical about the nature of time, one which didnt allow you to just talk nonsense # to answer. No math.

originally posted by: miomo alcoholics slurring their bs around the campfire after everyone else goes to bed.

ah, that takes me back

originally posted by: miomo
a reply to: DrunkYogi

Because for 3 pages I get to listen you literally make # up.

originally posted by: DrunkYogi
a reply to: bb23108

To truly live in the present one must be released of all identification with the body-mind, including all perception, conception, and even attention itself. Identification with the observer is still of the mind, and thus still an experience of the past.

There is no identification with anything bb. Just passive awareness of events rising and falling.

You guys literally just talk about nonsense # and the first guy to not understand what the other is saying, because its just made up bs, loses. To prove that I asked a plausible hypothetical about the nature of time, one which didnt allow you to just talk nonsense # to answer. And guess what?

Fail

You didn't have to read for three pages miomo. If you did not like the thread you could have clicked that little mouse right back out of it again.

How do you know your ideas about the nature of time are true ?
Why do you not respect other folks beliefs ?
Why are you trolling this thread ?
Why the anger ?

a reply to: DrunkYogi

I never, not once, posited any ideas about time. I asked a question. For 3 pages youre father time then when youre asked a real question you cant filibuster with new age nonsense you call me a troll.

Anger

a reply to: miomo

If you have no ideas on time then why are you questioning ours ?
How do you know it is a real question if you admitted you did not know the answer ?
What does filibuster mean ?
Who said they where Father Time ?
Why am i wasting my time ? (Presuming time exists )

p.s The new age stuff you refer to is thousands of years old.

originally posted by: miomo
a reply to: DrunkYogi

I know your type, so just keep on talking.

chirp chirp chirp

waste of time

Lol. I am enjoying this miomo. Your making me smile my friend.

Why don't you just read the thread with an open mind and consider the possibilities. If nothing more, it is a great subject to explore.

a reply to: miomo

A whole lot of anger going on there miomo. Maybe you should take up meditation.

originally posted by: miomo
a reply to: DrunkYogi

i think you should heed your own advice and figure how 'now' is disseminated between two points of relativity,

Can you tell me what two points you are referring to?

a reply to: miomo

Imagine a flip book with pictures of a man dancing, now imagine you flipping the pages to make the man "move". Is the man actually moving or is it just an illusion created by time (you flipping the pages)? Are the pictures actually moving or is each frame motionless? The "now" is each individual page with a man motionless, but in a slightly different position. What we experience is the "now", the motionless man with the illusion of motion created by time.

What you are trying to say here is that each individual page does not exist because our experience is always in the past. That is not true at all, we are always in the now, we are always experiencing each individual, motionless page.

If you cannot grasp the concept I am sorry, not everyone is capable of doing so. Just because someone doesn't understand trigonometry (I don't) doesn't mean trigonometry isn't an actual thing that can be understood. It just means you have to work on the idea and try to understand it through study.

I am not saying anything about you personally, there are just some concepts some cannot grasp until they are ready to do so.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

the person traveling 99% the speed of light on the train AND his wife stationary on land

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I appreciate the reply but not the condemnation. I am a few steps ahead of ya'll it seems. I get the 'now.' My hypo was meant to illustrate an issue when applying the 'now' to the theory of general relativity. How does 'now' (in the first instance the man on the train saying hello to his wife on the phone) translate to a different perspectives 'now'? The person on the train going the speed of light experiences time much slower than his wife on dry land, how does the 'now' (in the hypo i presented the phone conversation between the husband and wife) disseminate to account for this variance?

and im done spelling # out for you clowns

a reply to: miomo

You are assuming the other person exists.

originally posted by: DrunkYogi
a reply to: miomo

You are assuming the other person exists.

Of course, one is on the train and the other can watch it go by. The common experience of an independent stimuli is just about the best proof there is of a shared existence in the same reality.

this is amateur hour

originally posted by: miomo

originally posted by: DrunkYogi
a reply to: miomo

You are assuming the other person exists.

Of course, one is on the train and the other can watch it go by. The common experience of an independent stimuli is just about the best proof there is of a shared existence in the same reality.

this is amateur hour

Now you are assuming the train exists.

a reply to: miomo

What condemnation? LOL. All I said is that some people aren't ready to understand certain concepts, which is why I used trigonometry as an example. Am I condemning those who don't understand trigonometry? Of course not, otherwise I'd be condemning myself.

Please don't put words or ideas into my mouth. I wasn't condemning you about anything, only pointing out the fact that you may not be ready to understand the concept.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

do you understand my question? why have you only said i dont get anything and not even offered a suggestion as to what happens in my hypothetical? do you not get it? are you just not able to comprehend?

do you believe in Bible God?

answer those before telling me how smart you are again