subjective study on the comments on time

I hope not to be too assumptive when after reading quite a few comments in the forum Is the concept of spacetime philosophically logical? I find that each and every person has a good point to make. Time is everything you all have defined it as. For every definition of every word inevitably describes at least something in the minds of every person who attempted to describe it. I think what makes each definition different is the fact that you all may use your descriptions of time to apply meaning to your own specific lives or at least some part of it.

What some of you say is obvious to some because it is relevant to their life and not so obvious to others because it is irrelevant to their life. The same goes for vice versa. However there is some common tie that I, from my perspective, have seen most prominent. That is, as I have just explained, the application of time to a relevant cause.

The most relevant cause seems to be the description of life. Each comment I read seems to have some hope for relating their definition of time to what matters in their own life. For instance, some of you have explained time as being specific to the body(ies) interpreting it, others have defined time as being stagnant and individual of any single perspective. To me, this shows that each person is describing time as they have failed to see it in their past part of life. For the people that have normally viewed time to be stagnant, they now point out that it also is dependent on the one body percieving it. For the people that mostly assumed time functioned only in a relationship with the point of observation, it may seem more relevant for them to comment on the existence of time as it is stagnant. Now remember that most people do not even recognize what is obvious or assumed by themselves; only new contradictive ideas seem the most philosophical and pertainant to them. Also keep in mind that I am describing my observations of these posts generally and not specifically, meaning that there are absolutely exceptions to what I am saying.

This being so I realize that there is some falsity in my statements, however, what I mean to point out, as a general and personal study of these comments, is that each person’s post meant to describe time as it relates to their life. That to me, is the only relevant definition. Time, just like any other word, is a means to describe a part of life. How one uses it is completley up to their own disgretion. It is a word in the English language that can be used to describe a multitude of ideas given the correct context.

Now for argument’s sake I will put forth what I use the word “time” to describe and that is, for my own practical purposes, RATE multiplied by DISTANCE. (i.e.- miles/hour * miles) It is defined by the point of observation to which one can observe both the RATE and DISTANCE relative to two or more objects in motion. However, one may also observe, that after observing time as RATE multiplied by DISTANCE of two or more bodies, and subsequently looking away at some other observation, upon returning their attention to the primary observation they will have found that in almost every occasion, time will have remained in the same effect without anyone or anything to observe it until after “time” had passed. My point is that time exists without our help; it occurs whether we observe it or not. But the only way to describe it requires us to include our own subjectivity of our own observation of it. Time, again, is everything you have said it is, and also everything that has been and will be said of it. It’s definition to me is only relevant if it serves one’s own purposes.

In closing I would like to summarize my post by saying that much like in this definition of time, it is not relevant what a word or anything for that matter actually means. What is important is what each thing means to each and every one of us; how it serves our purposes. In this case, defining this term will hopefully lead me towards what I consider my purposes. And for those of you curious as to what my personal purpose for defining time in this post is I will tell you that much like in most other cases, I am using time and its definition to find some common tie between the rest of you. To find an agreeance we can all use to better our situations to the point where we all desire for no more than what we already have.

If humanity agreed with you, there would be no atomic bomb…

…nor would there be space travel.

I’m sorry you only want to see things from the perspective handed to you at birth.

Personally, I like to go as far outside of the cave as I can before I get blinded by the light of truth.

I can’t blame you if you want to continue making shadow puppets against the cave wall.

Dear Rafajafar,

I must have somewhere said something to lead you into a different train of thought. I meant only to specify that even though we may speculate towards the truth of time, it is simply that, a speculation. I never meant to say that these speculations were without use. What I mean to reply is that although you may believe I am solely keeping birth’s perspective, I am merely expressing what I had a hard time seeing before.

For me I now enjoy making shadow puppets on the wall of this so described birth cave. I never have done it before. That’s not to say the majority of my thought goes to ignorant play, it just says that I’ve never really stopped to smell the flowers because I’ve been so caught up in making “atomic bombs” and venturing towards “space travel” as you put it. I too would never want to stay in the cave forever, but I would definitley like to know where it is and what I can do in there. I like to get blinded by the light and then see if I can shed some of that light outside the cave. I like to try and be a mirror for the light so I can use it for its purpose.

It seems likeley that my previous post contained obvious subject matter to you. Please realize that I am blind to the obvious much of the time. I’m trying to open my eyes a little bit wider by posting and reading in this forum. I forgot to not that I do appreciate your comment. It clarifies how my words come out in effect. If you’re looking for me to venture forward some subjective persepective of time then I would suggest you read the portion of my original post which says,

“Now for argument’s sake I will put forth what I use the word “time” to describe and that is, for my own practical purposes, RATE multiplied by DISTANCE. (i.e.- miles/hour * miles) It is defined by the point of observation to which one can observe both the RATE and DISTANCE relative to two or more objects in motion. However, one may also observe, that after observing time as RATE multiplied by DISTANCE of two or more bodies, and subsequently looking away at some other observation, upon returning their attention to the primary observation they will have found that in every occasion, time will have remained in the same effect without anyone or anything to observe it until after “time” had passed.”

I hope I didn’t sound so stupid to you this time. Can’t ya give us babies a little help in our perspective anyway?:slight_smile: PWB

I never said it sounded stupid. Many times I wanted to write off life as one big speculation. But… why bother living if that’s the case.

That wasn’t an insult. It’s just funny that one would take the time to write an entire post about how seeking knowledge isn’t practical. There’s something ironic in that when you read it (cough, reading means seeking knowledge, cough).

If my words before make me academically retarded then so be it. You said,

“Many times I wanted to write off life as one big speculation. But… why bother living if that’s the case.”

I would never write off life as one big speculation, that’s not my point at all. My point is that even though we may use knowledge as a means to an end, it can never be so concentrated that it would allow anyone to communicate the whole of objective truth at any given time, but rather, it only allows us to communicate more clearly, yet still subjectively, the truths of the moment and surrounding moments. I realize the kind of arbitrary depression that can result from a lack of faith in your own knowledge. I know how saying “nothing matters” leads one to not trust in anything they say or do…it’s pointless. If you thought that was my point, think again.

“It’s just funny that one would take the time to write an entire post about how seeking knowledge isn’t practical. There’s something ironic in that when you read it (cough, reading means seeking knowledge, cough).”

There’s something even more ironic by the fact that I wrote it and I knew people would read it to seek knowledge! I never said seeking knowledge was impractical. I would deny anyone who told me it was. I know it makes everything useless to take away the effects of knowledge. That thought is like making shadows on the cave wall for me. I was just, in my first post, pointing out what YOU thought was obvious, and what I thought was not so obvious to my audience.(which now only consists of you)
I was simply pointing out a relationship between peoples’ statements about time and how they related to their life. Seeking knowledge is obviously practical to me, that’s why I don’t point it out, I just assume most people are gonna know that. You seemed to have missed that hidden idea and assumed my faults without even a fair judgement. Please realize my words never truly represent my exact thoughts. They are only a small fraction of the point I try and represent. And if you would kindly investigate whether you have gleaned my point instead of rushing out and pointing out the faults of my language I would appreciate it. You may not intend to insult but your haughtiness is offensive in itself. I’m sorry if I come off in a similar fashion but consider that as a result of me being happily and appreciatively offended by you myself.

I’m not sorry.

You wrote many paragraphs about nothing. I have gone over your words, you appear to have no new points that I didn’t comment on.

You claim I was arguing your words and not your meaning, but what else do I have to go on? I read between the lines and all I see is blanks when it comes to you.

So, people don’t want to know time, and probably never fully can. Does that mean it’s stupid so we should give up? Hell no. Does it mean it’s impractical. Hell friggin no.

I’m not sorry for saying that.

You say that each person defines time as it relates to their life, but we all share some form of a common reality and a common perception of time. Perhaps you should try concieving of time in a way that you wouldn’t normally do it, and that has NO practical implications on everyday life. It’s fun.

Let me make myself a wee bit more blunt. I KNOW ITS IMPORTANT TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND TIME. I DON’T THINK WE SHOULD GIVE UP OR THAT ITS STUPID OR IMPRACTICAL. Is that clear enough for you? I’m agreeing with you and you’re still trying to fight. My communication skills are obviously F*(CK^D up.

I never asked you to be sorry. I asked you to be less assumptive if you would like. If not then so be yourself. If you find nothing from my words then take nothing. If you don’t see anything in between the lines then keep it at that. And if all you see are lines then please do not use them against me. I’m not telling you are doing anything wrong, or that you have done something wrong. I’m only asking you to do is converse with me and not fight with me. Just because we may disagree does not mean we have to make eachother look like we don’t know what we’re talking about. So don’t be sorry, I don’t want you to be. I just wanna know if you’re willing to discuss the concepts at hand with good evidence and an open mind.

Do you still think I don’t believe understanding time is practical? Do you still think that I only believe in subjectivity and not objectivity? If you STILL think that. I’m denying it right now one more time for ya. I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE TRUTH. I BELIEVE IN A TRUTH. Now if you believe that or understand that I would like to maybe show you a bit of WHAT ELSE I was saying. But I’m assuming you’re just going to accuse me of being academically challenged again, or at least not smart enough for someone as enlightened as yourself oh wise one.

pulls his hair out

Then, what…are…you…saying?

I’m done.

Apparently, I need an interpreter. Marshall? Someone? It must be going over my head, because I thought that’s what you’re saying.

I like what you said about time being independant of our perception, by the way. I’m not so good at expressing positive thoughts.

All I’m saying is that a person will never find a true meaning for life or time or anything. They should simply use it for their purposes nonetheless. They may try to define life or time in other terms, but that definition will never involve the whole truth of the matter. THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT OBSOLETE. It just means that nobody needs to be right in theory. Only some one or some people need to be right enough so that we can make atomic bombs, and invent space travel. And even though these things have and will be made, their inventions does not make their creators correct in their view of time or anything for that matter, it only makes them correct enough for their purposes.

For example, Jane is presented with a pile of play-dough and asked to describe it. After observing it she then replies it is red clay. Joe who is sitting next to her describes the substance himself as silly putty. Finally Burt, who is playing with trucks on the floor explains it is a load of crap for his truck to dump.

Now, which one of them is the most correct in their answer? If I were to ridicule this measly example I would say they’re all wrong. But what makes them wrong? How have they used to the wrong words to describe the play-dough? One calls it red clay, another silly putty, and another a load of crap. What’s wrong with those answers? I know this sounds like I’m alluding back to subjectivity but that’s only part of the point so hold on.

They all are describing exactly what they see. For Jane she will use her red clay to make an artful creation, Joe will use his silly putty to make newspaper imprints, and Burt will take a dump.

Even though their definitions work for what each one of them wants to do, these children will never be able to use the play-dough together to make bigger and better things if they don’t share common describing words about the substance. They won’t be able to make a play-dough atomic bomb if they don’t start defining a few aspects of the play-dough so that they can all use it for that same purpose. They won’t be able to do anything at all together if no one is correct enough so that they can agree. They will be stuck making shadow puppets on the wall of the cave.

THAT is YOUR point. That we must define a “correct” view so that we can work towards similar goals. MY point is that even though that very practical view might seem “correct,” it never will be compeletely true. It will only be correct enough so that inventions creations and discoveries(people’s life purposes) may follow. Does that mean that there is no absolute truth? Absolutely not! It simply means no one can claim they have it.

Ahhh, so I see.

I see now where I was confused. That is a most EXCELLENT example you just gave. Mind if I use it sometime?

You’re saying that humans only work in the precision that suits their needs. Even though the truth is never seen, we all work within our own scope to suit our individual needs/desires.

Yes, the correct view should be our goal…however, differing views all work towards that goal as well. What is PlayDough? A word. Nothing more. It’s comprised of various molecules that have a particular cohesive property with each other, true, but if you call it clay, or you call it a dump, or you call it silly putty, those are all words used to define something greater than the word. It’s a symbol. However, the application of this thing, the one described by a simple word, is what’s important to us all…right? So, even if truth is our goal, what point is there to this truth if the application is our only purpose. Because the persuit of truth brings new applications.

I understand what you’re saying now.

This is interesting to me, as it applies to much more than just contemplation of the physical.

Would you say that man, over time, and with a great deal of thought, has slowly begun to increase the precision of thought for every day man? I mean, only 200 years ago, a majority of the population still believed in witchcraft as the work of the devil. They believed in folk lore, and pseudo-science.

Would you say that as the upper men (those closest to ubermensch) increase their own precision, that this thought eventually filters down towards the more dogmatic of peoples? Perhaps the truth is found in the application, as it teaches those who need to see the result before the proposal what those who propose results meant.