You can't go back in time, because time is an illusion! "Time" is simply things that that we remember. When we see an object move from left to right. We REMEMBER that the object WAS somewhere, NOW its elsewhere. Thats what we call time.
Time is an Illusion!
Memory is an illusion. What you remember is the working of a bunch of neurons synapsing -- just the organized movements of molecules. Your definition of time is but a human construct. Saying that time itself is an illusion is implying that everything else that "exists" is an illusion as well.
Past and future do not exist, but present.
Past is what we remember from memory, and future is a projection of actions taken from the past.
Past is what we remember from memory, and future is a projection of actions taken from the past.
So you're saying we have no way of knowing the past actually happened because our brains are making it up?
| nilsmo wrote: |
| So you're saying we have no way of knowing the past actually happened because our brains are making it up? |
Exactly!! x]
Basically life is an illusion. End it at that because what you are reading now is an illusion created by another illusion that was created by another illusion. Science as we know it is an illusion. We just use illusions to describe other illusions in a more understanding way.
| polis wrote: |
| Past and future do not exist, but present.
Past is what we remember from memory, and future is a projection of actions taken from the past. |
Exactly what i ment to say! lol
| DjinniFire wrote: | ||
Exactly!! x] |
Then why does the past make so much sense in the context of the present (geology, history, just normal observation)? You later in your post say that science and observation stuff is just tricks our minds make up.. you're saying logic is just made up...
I'm skeptical. You seem to have a Matrixish idea. You're denying reality as defined by just about everyone
| nilsmo wrote: | ||||
Then why does the past make so much sense in the context of the present (geology, history, just normal observation)? You later in your post say that science and observation stuff is just tricks our minds make up.. you're saying logic is just made up... I'm skeptical. You seem to have a Matrixish idea. You're denying reality as defined by just about everyone |
"As defined by just about everyone" ...wait so if they defined it, then how do you know it's reality? See the definition that everyone (including I) put on reality is all still an illusion, it does not contradict any thought, it is more of accepting that we do not truly understand anything but we do understand what we perceive to understand, which for our being is good enough :]
logic works, in what sense? In the sense of logic, it's a never ending circle to prove oneself. It's like taking the sky, is it blue? Yes because we defined it as blue, is it truly blue? We don't know, what is blue? It's an illusion that we have setup to define what we perceive, we can never know something definitely, but we can know what we perceive as definite. Did that make sense? x] Thought provoking to madness.
| DjinniFire wrote: |
| "As defined by just about everyone" ...wait so if they defined it, then how do you know it's reality? See the definition that everyone (including I) put on reality is all still an illusion, it does not contradict any thought, it is more of accepting that we do not truly understand anything but we do understand what we perceive to understand, which for our being is good enough :]
logic works, in what sense? In the sense of logic, it's a never ending circle to prove oneself. It's like taking the sky, is it blue? Yes because we defined it as blue, is it truly blue? We don't know, what is blue? It's an illusion that we have setup to define what we perceive, we can never know something definitely, but we can know what we perceive as definite. Did that make sense? x] Thought provoking to madness. |
Science only accepts things that are proven true and it can tell you only what is PHYSICALLY PROVEN. It's not practical to say something COULD BE TRUE without a physical proof. If one says theres invisible angels floating on top of one's head that no one else can percieve. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to prove nor disprove that there is or isn't invisible angels there.
What you are saying is the same thing, your saying that it COULD be possible, but what your saying ISN'T science. Its more of a religion because even if it is possible, you can't prove it PHYSICALLY.
This is why Science doesn't accept the existence of God because of the fact that there is no physical proof that there IS God, it is POSSIBLE that there CAN be a God, but no one ever provided a solid enough proof that there really is a God.
OK, now he's moving from saying Time is fake to that Reality is fake.
The idea that reality is fake (in effect, everything is fake) can never be observed, tested, or anything or anything. So it's like a religion as ThreeRight says and my advice is to not think about or believe in what you say... I mean, I wouldn't like the next thing you say to be "Oh since reality is fake, then people are fake and I can kill everyone."
The idea that reality is fake (in effect, everything is fake) can never be observed, tested, or anything or anything. So it's like a religion as ThreeRight says and my advice is to not think about or believe in what you say... I mean, I wouldn't like the next thing you say to be "Oh since reality is fake, then people are fake and I can kill everyone."
^In the same way, though, the supposition that reality is real can never be observed or proven. The only thing you can really prove to be real is your own intelligence, which gives true meaning to, "I think, therefore I am". Anything else, though, could conceivably be false data being presented to your consciousness.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^In the same way, though, the supposition that reality is real can never be observed or proven. The only thing you can really prove to be real is your own intelligence, which gives true meaning to, "I think, therefore I am". Anything else, though, could conceivably be false data being presented to your consciousness. |
Everything works so well in "reality". It makes so much sense. And since we "are" in reality and its a completely closed system, it's best not to consider anything else.
why is it that when one talks about time, they end up in the conversation about reality?
maybe because we cannot see time with our eyes like the other diemonsions... we can see only its effects... we slept and our minds go to a timeless place so maybe our souls dont accept actuality of time.
maybe our souls re coming a timeless place and the reason is that which we talk about time and reality together
maybe our souls re coming a timeless place and the reason is that which we talk about time and reality together
| explosive wrote: |
| maybe because we cannot see time with our eyes like the other diemonsions... we can see only its effects... |
cognito, ergo sum
Perhaps everything else is just a figment of my imagination. But if I were to believe so, then life would be pretty lonely. Time might be an illusion, but it's pretty handy for helping to keep everything from happening all at once.
Perhaps everything else is just a figment of my imagination. But if I were to believe so, then life would be pretty lonely. Time might be an illusion, but it's pretty handy for helping to keep everything from happening all at once.
| Jinx wrote: |
| cognito, ergo sum
Perhaps everything else is just a figment of my imagination. But if I were to believe so, then life would be pretty lonely. Time might be an illusion, but it's pretty handy for helping to keep everything from happening all at once. |
The question is not so much "does time exist?", I think. It is more "does time flow?"
Electronics may be able to prove the existence of time?
Consider a simple circuit with a capacitor in it.
If this circuit is connected to A/C current, the current will flow.
If it is connected to DC current, the current cannot flow, though.
Since A/C current is a current that varies over time, time must exist, or else the A/C current would only be equal to an instantaneous sample of it, and would be equivalent to a DC current.
Since the current can flow through a simple circuit with a capacitor when supplied with A/C current, we know that the current is varying over time, therefore time exists. (This assumes, of course, that the circuit and current also exist.)
Consider a simple circuit with a capacitor in it.
If this circuit is connected to A/C current, the current will flow.
If it is connected to DC current, the current cannot flow, though.
Since A/C current is a current that varies over time, time must exist, or else the A/C current would only be equal to an instantaneous sample of it, and would be equivalent to a DC current.
Since the current can flow through a simple circuit with a capacitor when supplied with A/C current, we know that the current is varying over time, therefore time exists. (This assumes, of course, that the circuit and current also exist.)
you all are a bunch of philosophers not yet evolved into the Alpha form
 |