It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImmortalThought
I think that reality is playing itself out within the framework of eternity, which would imply an eternal recurrence, to which I add the word "evolutionary" as in an evolutionary eternal recurrence, to describe a progression in complexity, but the "arrow" is verticle, and non-linear, and therefore has no correlation with "time" as we concieve of it ie: past-present-future.
I could go on but I don't have the time right at the moment to give this the attention it deserves.
Originally posted by ImmortalThought
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImmortalThought
I think that reality is playing itself out within the framework of eternity, which would imply an eternal recurrence, to which I add the word "evolutionary" as in an evolutionary eternal recurrence, to describe a progression in complexity, but the "arrow" is verticle, and non-linear, and therefore has no correlation with "time" as we concieve of it ie: past-present-future.
I could go on but I don't have the time right at the moment to give this the attention it deserves.
Exactly the time you dont have here is time existing somewhere else, and by relation exists here though in the background. That is what you call an enternal recurrence or what I call the repetive function of a paradox.
Originally posted by thed3adbeat
Another problem we often encounter in thinking about time is one put best by Greek philosopher, Zeno, a paradox he put as "Zeno's Arrow". Read about it if you'd like to understand what I'm talking about if you don't already. Time can either go by in 'instants' or it can flow smoothly, like a river. Does time go by fraction by fraction or is there an infinite amount of instants between one second and another?
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Originally posted by ImmortalThought
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImmortalThought
I think that reality is playing itself out within the framework of eternity, which would imply an eternal recurrence, to which I add the word "evolutionary" as in an evolutionary eternal recurrence, to describe a progression in complexity, but the "arrow" is verticle, and non-linear, and therefore has no correlation with "time" as we concieve of it ie: past-present-future.
I could go on but I don't have the time right at the moment to give this the attention it deserves.
Exactly the time you dont have here is time existing somewhere else, and by relation exists here though in the background. That is what you call an enternal recurrence or what I call the repetive function of a paradox.
No, there's only the eternally unfolding present moment of now, that's it. But there's part of us which refuses to except that and will go to any lengths to persuade us otherwise. The resolution to the apparent paradox, is the eternal now as all there is, but the "self" cannot accept it, since it's very existence depends on the concept of past and future, as a recording and projecting and meaning making machine.
Originally posted by thed3adbeat
Why must we be so insistent that time does not exist? That time is but a figment of our imagination, passing by only because we insist in our minds that it must.
I will argue that time exists. Not only within our minds but that time is a real thing. It may not be touched like you may touch a stone, but it exists as much as any other force of nature - of gravity, of electricity, of magnetism. Why can these things unarguably exist but not time?
Surely you cannot touch the force of gravity, you cannot reach out and grasp at it, yet gravity is not argued to exist only within our minds, until one starts to argue about the very fabric of reality itself.
I'll tell you what I think time is. Time is the very essence of change. Without time, there is no change. Indeed the way we measure time is by change. It seems backwards because if time is change, and the only way to measure time is by change, then how can we ever get a truly accurate reading of time? Yes, this is a big problem in any argument about the nature of temporal reality.
We do not completely understand time, anymore than we understand the other forces of nature. Yet, we understand time less because it cannot be described as either a weak nor a strong force. In our own minds time can seem to go by painfully slowly or it can go by ridiculously fast, yet it would appear to an observer outside of our minds that time goes by just as it did before. Time is neither strong nor weak, or anywhere in between. It's a force of change. Things can change fast or they can change slow but the amount of time in between the change is always the same...
Another problem we often encounter in thinking about time is one put best by Greek philosopher, Zeno, a paradox he put as "Zeno's Arrow". Read about it if you'd like to understand what I'm talking about if you don't already. Time can either go by in 'instants' or it can flow smoothly, like a river. Does time go by fraction by fraction or is there an infinite amount of instants between one second and another?
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImmortalThought
It's not a choice between two, but the creative choice from all that is possible. You don't or can't choose something simply because of what it's not, that's not absolute freedom, and thus lacks power, and I might add, authenticity.
I think you are mistaken.
There is a no-mind mind, a non-seeking beginners mind which knows something about this that you may not have considered before.
I tell you what - I'll try on your ideas if you will try on mine, how's that sound?
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Originally posted by ImmortalThought
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImmortalThought
I think that reality is playing itself out within the framework of eternity, which would imply an eternal recurrence, to which I add the word "evolutionary" as in an evolutionary eternal recurrence, to describe a progression in complexity, but the "arrow" is verticle, and non-linear, and therefore has no correlation with "time" as we concieve of it ie: past-present-future.
I could go on but I don't have the time right at the moment to give this the attention it deserves.
Exactly the time you dont have here is time existing somewhere else, and by relation exists here though in the background. That is what you call an enternal recurrence or what I call the repetive function of a paradox.
No, there's only the eternally unfolding present moment of now, that's it. But there's part of us which refuses to except that and will go to any lengths to persuade us otherwise. The resolution to the apparent paradox, is the eternal now as all there is, but the "self" cannot accept it, since it's very existence depends on the concept of past and future, as a recording and projecting and meaning making machine.