I'm more of an absurdist. I skim experiences, ideas, theories, knowledge off of the surface of scholasticism until I begin to understand it, then I stop. It's really all I have time for. It's really all anyone has time for. I only seek to truly understand the things I want to understand, of which the first few layers are not enough.

Well that was just mean Veritas

shine on you crazy diamond.

ooooh girl u supa sassy today!

haha

^^^ Veritas nailed it.




Taking the stance of "time exist" or "doesn't exist" is just as absurd as both sides of the extreme :)

WE EXIST IN A WORLD OF POLARITY YO.... what the fuck is light, without dark,..... or high without low...

All things we experience as "a something" also have their opposite.


So whether or not you think time exists... there is no right or wrong... it always just 'was' :)

You can exist in this world and escape time, however.

and we do it on a nightly basis in our dreams. or in meditation. or in moments where "the game seemed to slow down".

just to defend the lesser stood-by stance

http://replygif.net/i/1474.gif

You are confusing the relativity of perception with the relativity of measurable quantities.


time will exist if I believe it doesnt. time will exist if i believe it does. Two different shades of truth and established harmony might give a scientist and a theologist the same sense of self-satisfied complacence but that doesn't mean either of them they have found TRUTH let alone the same truth. The universe doesn't exist independent of us, just independent of our perception of the universe. Time would STILL exist if life never existed because the definition of time is not directly tied into people observing time. It is tied to experimental observations that people were able to record as a result of them being alive.


Everything is experimental. That is the bridge between your mind and the world.

You cannot escape time. You can forget about it.

I can only imagine you subscribe to the "big bang theory", correct?

If not - what do you subscribe to?

if so -- did time exist before the big bang first occurred?

A variation of the Big Bang Theory, yeah. Only because of how many different facets of the universe are mathematically consistent within the theory// correlate with observational data in the past and the future.

We don't know the original zeroth state of the universe. The Big Bang Theory as it stands says it began as a singularity, but most of the modern theories use quantum mechanics that are not properly integrated into the BBT to elaborate on the beginnings of the universe



The one that I believe explains the origins of the universe best is the Bubble Universe theory



We know that before the Big Bang (according to the theory) there was homogeneity. Singularity as a point mass, or singularity as nothingness. In the Bubble Universe Theory, when enough of this homogeneity is present (i.e. a true vacuum of all but quantum matter) the presence of those quantum particles within this vacuum determines whether or not this separated region can give rise to a universe AND what the physical laws of this universe are. Further explained by string theory.

But the cool thing is, it allows for multiple universes within the same framework of a multiverse. And it gives a reasonable explanation for how nothing arises from something.
It is very fractal. If you're interested, read Michio Kaku.




CLIFFS.


Time exists where matter exists in spacetime. Time is a function of existence. If nothing exists there is no time.

You mistake my intent.

What a great thread.

Whoever made this thread must be awesome and handsome.

Science ho, chums!

@timeless

Look no furthe r

^word

so where space is not a constraint, neither is time

do you believe that existence in the beta state is superior than the other 3 or 4 frequencies?

we only perceive time in one frequency... the rest, space and time don't matter.