We notice “time” passing by. We divide our lives into Days, Minutes, Seconds, Milliseconds etc. We notice the past getting ‘further’ away. It all makes a very convincing case for ‘time being real’.
We exist in a single moment trapped in between past and future. So how “long” is this single ‘moment’ of time??
What i realised was that whatever value you gave it, it automatically becomes the wrong value. Why? Because you can always half that value. There is always a smaller amount that it could be.
That leads to only one logical conclusion - the value for a single moment of time, is ZERO!
To me, i feel that this idea is a groundbreaking one - because if every moment is of zero length, then it means that we are still in the VERY SAME MOMENT as we have always been in!!! (a billion zeros is still zero) Not only that, but this also works for space too (ie what is the smallest amount of distance?) the answer is the same : Zero - meaning there is NO SPACE!
No time - No space - Well, i think that’s pretty profound
In my dreams there is no space - it’s all in my mind, yet it FEELS like space. I believe that is exactly the same as how things are here in this ‘reality’.
This idea could lead to the understanding of many things… God, freewill, etc etc.
By definition, for something to exist it has to exist in the now. Therefore past and future – if they exist – can also only exist in the now. We have history of the past and predictions of the future, but those are only abstractions. However, if we look at it from a deterministic perspective, information of all past and future events exist in this very moment – the now.
Well, the thing that needs to be realised is that ‘you are already there’ ! Somehow using desire, choice & action, you make it possible to ‘get there’ I would be interested to know more about the science of this.
Well i do live in Norwich, which is East Anglia… so yeah I guess it could be considere Easten thinking A though is a thought to me.
Seriously though, are there any scientific minded people reading this who can comment on my theory? I was hoping this discussion would be quite a serious one.
Long time no see. Glad to see you back on the forums. I can’t really help you on your matter, though, because this kind of thing is hard to get solid proof for. I would check into quantum physics or quantum consciousness for the science end.
Murdoc, thank you… that is appreciated that you noticed me/my absence. I became a little despondent to be honest, reading through the various posts made me realise that most people don’t really care about finding answers they just enjoy the discussing of them and or arguing their own beliefs. I kind of accepted that ‘my truth is the only one that I need to worry about’ So I’ve been getting my “truth fix” in other ways such as meditation and observation, feeling no compelling desire to share my findings with others unless coincidence leads that to be.
But then I realised that if i didn’t help the genuine truth seekers and thinkers out there then - who would? . Gotta do my bit to help the universal evolution of mankind! lol
Jerry, yes I read that and it is the same kind of thinking. So does that make my initial idea redundant? Or does my idea still hold to be true? We still live in a moment of zero value, and a whole load of zeros strung together still equals zero. ?
I think you confuse the units we use to measure with the phenomenon that’s measured. Does it matter how long a moment is? It’s length is only an experience of our perception which has long been preprogrammed. How long therefore becomes meaningless. One thing is for certain, nothing is possible without the subdivisions of time which has become more refined as time goes on or more accurately as civilization advances. Again, it doesn’t matter whether time is a side-effect or the real thing. It changes nothing; we march to it to the end; the end of whatever exists.
Time is the most “metaphoric” of our conceptions; what science is attempting now is what the mystic tradition has always tried to do: dispense with the metaphor to behold its “background”.
I don’t think that we live in a single moment. Unfortunately, it’s hard to prove. I can talk about brains, and how various parts of the brain are reacting to stimuli that are temporally disparate, but in order to do that, I must assume time and space. I could point to physical theories that indicate that both space and time happen in discrete intervals: pixilated space and ticking time. But again, these theories are derived from our experience of time and space.
The implication is that proving, as well as disproving, the existence of space and time rests on some fundamental assumptions that cannot be proven. Our experience is so caught up in space and time that talking about it without assuming it is impossible.
It seems an unanswerable question, and regardless of where we put our faith, we function spacially and temporally. Pragmatism and logical positivism respond by accepting ignorance and mvoing on.
It seems that you disagree with the idea because “it s hard to prove”?. Do you not think that the changing of moments is just as big of a problem when your asking for “proof”? We are only lost in thought and it is that which creates"moments". When somebody asks, why “something” rather than “nothing”. That something they’re talking about is not the cosmos but rather the background where the cosmos are fixed, the distance between each object and the “reality” that seems endless. That is what “nothing” is. Once you can understand that then there is no longer that latter question.
Your concept is not a new one. It’s what all the Sages have been saying all along. Somehow, though when we have our own personal realisation from our own perspective, we can understand other perspectives too because it is not the perspective that is important but the understanding of the truth inside. I don’t know if I’m making myself clear here but I think you get the picture.
This moment to moment is what it is all about and if we can grasp this very simple concept then we can begin to recognise the hold that our very clever minds have over us. The mind cannot exist in the present moment, it can only exist in the future or in the past. To experience this ‘zero’ we have to drop the mind - in order to see directly and act directly.
Drop their mind! Are you kidding? Thats like telling a cop to drop his gun. Most people are too afraid to drop the mind. Their thoughts are everything to them.
The scientific explanations are to continue breaking time into ever smaller increments ad infinitum.
As a convention, increments of time are very useful. Science could hardly exist without time ‘measurements’. I might forget to have dinner.
Time is a construction. Past, present, and future are simply convenient abstractions used by the mind as tools of order.
We use the same concept in examining the physical universe. There are objects and empty space between them. We continue to divide nature into smaller and smaller bits and pieces in order to know more and more about less and less. We forget that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Again, convenient constructs.
I’d have to agree that the mind simply isn’t capable of functioning without these constructs. To grasp intuitive understanding would require that we release those constructs. As has been pointed out, the mind is a sneaky bastard that fights to maintain dominance. It’s just possible that truth is only known when you are out of your mind.
Actually this fits into my understanding of the six dimensions that constitute our universe. This first stage actually has no dimensions or “zero” dimensions and is called a “point”. It must be seen as a “limit” for the idea to be built on. For example a series of points stretching out into infinity is a line or the first dimension. At each of these points comprising a line you can extend a line out from at right angles into infinity. The resulting figure is a plane or surface and the addition of the second dimension. At right angles to each of these points on the two dimensional surface, lines can be stretched out into infinity creating a cube, three dimensional space, the third dimension.
However, existence is in “time” and not in space and occurs within the space of the fourth dimension. Taking all the points on the cube and extending them out into infinity creates a figure and a quality of space beyond our comprehension.
The point though is a “limit” so existence in time is the eternal reproduction of this limit. A person’s life is not just one point but a multitude of points. This line of eternally repeating points that constitue a person’s life is the fifth dimension or eternity
However, there are an infinite possible eternities and their possible actualizations occur in the sixth dimension which includes all possibilities.
All of this is built on “points”, zero dimensions, or “limits”.
The ancient symbol of the cross is a description of this interaction between the horizontal actualization of points or “limits”, and the vertical quality of “now” which comprehends the levels and connections in-between the beginning of creation and the actualization of these “limits” The place at which they intersect is your “understanding” of the relationship between duality and the highest Zero that is beyond the dimensions of time and space or “no-thing”.
There is no contradiction between our ability for associative, dual, thought and our capacity for esoteric thought or consciousness. We just lack the ability to put them into perspective and let each provide the function they are supposed to. With us, our reliance on associative thought has stunted our ability for consciousness replacing it with imagination leading to the chaos everyone seems aware of but powerless against.
How can a value become “wrong” merely because you take a reductionist perspective?
Can you not equally claim that the original value is “right” and reducing it in half is “wrong?”
And why the insistance on deduction? Can we not double the value just as one arbitrarily dimishes it? Does that make it “super right?”
I really do not follow the logic of what “is” based upon reduction potential. Seems more like a reductionist distraction based upon subjective values that are in no way essential than any type of actualized correlation.
