Announcements Announcements

DhO Hacked and Upgrade

General

ATTENTION!: It appears that our server has been hacked through this version of Liferay, meaning it is no longer secure, and so expect instability as we deal with this and attempt to upgrade to Liferay 7, which we failed to be able to do last year the last time the team attempted it, but we have no choice at this point, so bear with us as we try again. Save any long posts in a text file before posting them. You can follow me on Twitter at @danielmingram for updates if the site is down. Apologies for any complexity this causes. We will work as fast as we can. We have backups of the database, so hopefully nothing will be lost. Thanks to all helping with this complex process.

 

 

 

Message Boards Message Boards

Practices Inspired by Actualism

relativity and eternal time

Toggle
relativity and eternal time Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 4/2/11 4:41 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Mikha Rlin 10/27/11 10:43 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 4/2/11 5:15 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Mikha Rlin 4/2/11 5:31 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time . Jake . 4/2/11 5:40 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Nad A. 4/2/11 9:32 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Mikha Rlin 4/3/11 10:45 AM
RE: relativity and eternal time Nad A. 4/4/11 2:44 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 4/4/11 3:16 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Nad A. 4/4/11 4:03 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Nad A. 4/4/11 4:10 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 4/4/11 5:15 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 4/4/11 4:47 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Mikha Rlin 4/4/11 7:17 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Nad A. 4/2/11 6:10 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 4/2/11 7:22 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time ManZ A 4/2/11 9:02 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Nad A. 4/2/11 9:31 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time ManZ A 4/3/11 12:40 AM
RE: relativity and eternal time Matt L 4/2/11 10:27 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Nad A. 4/2/11 11:24 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Martin Potter 4/4/11 11:06 AM
RE: relativity and eternal time Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 4/4/11 11:20 AM
RE: relativity and eternal time katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 10/25/11 2:11 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 10/25/11 2:36 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 10/25/11 2:55 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 10/25/11 2:59 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time James Yen 10/25/11 4:12 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 10/26/11 9:54 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Daniel M. Ingram 10/27/11 2:45 AM
RE: relativity and eternal time katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 10/27/11 12:19 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Jeff Grove 10/28/11 2:56 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 10/28/11 10:37 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Jeff Grove 10/29/11 9:43 PM
RE: relativity and eternal time Hazel Kathleen Strange 10/30/11 3:46 AM
RE: relativity and eternal time Jeff Grove 10/31/11 3:29 AM
RE: relativity and eternal time Hazel Kathleen Strange 11/1/11 4:29 AM
RE: relativity and eternal time Jeff Grove 11/1/11 9:40 PM
relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/2/11 4:41 PM
I know you were involved in the lengthy discussions on this list on this very subject a while back, so I will save the details. Essentially, as I understand it – relativity assumes that time and space can ‘expand’ and ‘contract’ – or is different for different observers, thus dependent on the observer in some way. This treats time as if it actually has duration, as in, time itself would have a ‘flow.’
According to the actualists – the PCE reveals that there is no ‘flow’ to time – rather it is always here and now – there is no other place and time than here and now – so there is no duration. The ‘flow’ of time feels real, but is not actual. Time is actual, but eternal.
Conclusion: Relativity must be incorrect because it assumes that there is such a thing as temporal duration, where the PCE demonstrates that there is no duration to time – being eternal. [link]

yet, the calculations gotten from the theory of special relativity are required for GPS to work.

so it would seem that time does indeed pass differently for different observers... yet in a PCE it is obvious that time doesn't pass at all. what gives? why would perfectly synchronized clocks start getting out of sync if you place them in orbit around the earth instead of in one room on the earth?

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/27/11 10:43 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
maybe the atoms are moving/spinning relatively faster thus the clock is spinning relatively faster.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/2/11 5:15 PM as a reply to Mikha Rlin.
Mikha Rlin:
maybe the atoms are moving/spinning relatively faster thus the clock is spinning relatively faster.

yea my q seems a red herring. it doesnt mean relativity's calculations are wrong or useful, it just means its assumptions, e.g. that time passes, are wrong.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/2/11 5:31 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
it doesnt mean relativity's calculations are wrong or useful, it just means its assumptions, e.g. that time passes, are wrong.

sounds sensible to me

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/2/11 5:40 PM as a reply to Mikha Rlin.
Right. If relativity is describing the way that processes appear to have different durations depending on the point from which they're observed, this says nothing about some over-arching meta-process called "time", just the relative apparent duration of processes. It seems we could even look at relativity as deconstructing such an overarching "time" that would be a meta-process within which (or against the background of which) phenomenal processes occur, although I'm not sure Einstein would approve of such a reading of relativity :-)

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/2/11 6:10 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
so it would seem that time does indeed pass differently for different observers... yet in a PCE it is obvious that time doesn't pass at all. what gives?


it just means its assumptions, e.g. that time passes, are wrong.


No it doesn't. It is "obvious" to people in certain enlightenment experiences that awareness/consciousness pre-dates brains, yet that is complete rubbish.

It is silly to believe one rare type of human experience - especially one you haven't even had yourself - to be the absolute truth/fact on a topic when all other evidence suggests something contrary.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/2/11 7:22 PM as a reply to Nad A..
Nad A.:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
so it would seem that time does indeed pass differently for different observers... yet in a PCE it is obvious that time doesn't pass at all. what gives?


it just means its assumptions, e.g. that time passes, are wrong.


No it doesn't. It is "obvious" to people in certain enlightenment experiences that awareness/consciousness pre-dates brains, yet that is complete rubbish.

It is silly to believe one rare type of human experience - especially one you haven't even had yourself - to be the absolute truth/fact on a topic when all other evidence suggests something contrary.

ah yeah i didn't mean to sound so certain. i just mean this isn't an obvious argument as to why the actualists are wrong , so i've yet to see for myself basically.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/2/11 9:02 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
I know you were involved in the lengthy discussions on this list on this very subject a while back, so I will save the details. Essentially, as I understand it – relativity assumes that time and space can ‘expand’ and ‘contract’ – or is different for different observers, thus dependent on the observer in some way. This treats time as if it actually has duration, as in, time itself would have a ‘flow.’
According to the actualists – the PCE reveals that there is no ‘flow’ to time – rather it is always here and now – there is no other place and time than here and now – so there is no duration. The ‘flow’ of time feels real, but is not actual. Time is actual, but eternal.
Conclusion: Relativity must be incorrect because it assumes that there is such a thing as temporal duration, where the PCE demonstrates that there is no duration to time – being eternal. [link]

yet, the calculations gotten from the theory of special relativity are required for GPS to work.

so it would seem that time does indeed pass differently for different observers... yet in a PCE it is obvious that time doesn't pass at all. what gives? why would perfectly synchronized clocks start getting out of sync if you place them in orbit around the earth instead of in one room on the earth?


Well here's my take on it. I don't think that it being perpetually now is the same as time not passing. There's just not a feeling of time passing. In actuality time does pass, the clock ticks. It's just not felt to pass. Time actually passing and feeling it to pass are two different things. The feeling in this case (and pretty much the entire affective faculty) is redundant. It being perpetually now means that one can only ever experience now. One cannot experience two different times now (and whatever you experience then would also be now). That's just bizarre to even think about. This reminds me of the Hurricane Ranch discussion where Tarin tells of a time when Richard (or Peter?) pointed to a clock and says something along the lines of "There is movement yet there is nothing that moves" (or something like that). Maybe need to give that a re-listen.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/2/11 9:32 PM as a reply to Mikha Rlin.
Mikha Rlin:
maybe the atoms are moving/spinning relatively faster thus the clock is spinning relatively faster.


If abolutely everything in an environment (all particles, all atoms, all bodies, all energy) was moving/changing slower then how would that be different to 'time' slowing down?

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/2/11 9:31 PM as a reply to ManZ A.
ManZ A:
Well here's my take on it. I don't think that it being perpetually now is the same as time not passing. There's just not a feeling of time passing. In actuality time does pass, the clock ticks. It's just not felt to pass. Time actually passing and feeling it to pass are two different things. The feeling in this case (and pretty much the entire affective faculty) is redundant. It being perpetually now means that one can only ever experience now. One cannot experience two different times now (and whatever you experience then would also be now). That's just bizarre to even think about. This reminds me of the Hurricane Ranch discussion where Tarin tells of a time when Richard (or Peter?) pointed to a clock and says something along the lines of "There is movement yet there is nothing that moves" (or something like that). Maybe need to give that a re-listen.


Yes but note that, as with the 'infinite universe' issue, Richard takes his experience not just to mean that the 'real world' time-passing feeling is absent from AF experiencing... he uses it to make a scientific claim about the universe and tries to criticise Einstein's theory of relativity because of it.

If the newer actualists and actually free won't be doing that then do you have any ideas why the first actually-free person did? Poor education? Is he lacking critical thinking skills? Some other flaw in his personality which can remain even after AF?

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/2/11 10:27 PM as a reply to ManZ A.
ManZ A:


Well here's my take on it. I don't think that it being perpetually now is the same as time not passing. There's just not a feeling of time passing. In actuality time does pass, the clock ticks. It's just not felt to pass. Time actually passing and feeling it to pass are two different things. The feeling in this case (and pretty much the entire affective faculty) is redundant. It being perpetually now means that one can only ever experience now. One cannot experience two different times now (and whatever you experience then would also be now). That's just bizarre to even think about. This reminds me of the Hurricane Ranch discussion where Tarin tells of a time when Richard (or Peter?) pointed to a clock and says something along the lines of "There is movement yet there is nothing that moves" (or something like that). Maybe need to give that a re-listen.


I think the quote is closer to the effect of watching the clock moving and recognising that it isn't time moving, it is the hands of a clock moving through space.

To my understanding Actualist perspective is that time is a stationary (as in still) arena that allows for space to rearrange itself.

I have some very small (non-authoritative) familiarity with relativity and special relativity from college physics classes so this has been a line of inquiry of mine for quite a while. My conclusions are that they're speaking about 2 different things and i'll try to highlight a major point as to why they're not perspectives that are 'versing' each other. I would accept any criticism of my conclusions as said my familiarity with relativity is only introductory.

In relativity (not special) time dilation is said to occur in the following way: gravity warps space-time the closer you are to a massive object such that a clock on earth will tick at a different speed relative to a clock further away from the earth eg. clock on a tall tower extending out to space. It is factually verified that the clocks tick at different speeds given a reference frame: that is to say if you're on earth you would observe the tower clock to move faster than your local clock BUT if you're on the tower you would observe the earth clock to move slower than the local clock - so given the reference frame (earth or tower) the local clock is the 'correct' time. What does this mean in terms of actualism versus relativity? It means that actual time isn't moving at a different speed (actual time is not moving at all), it is just observed to be by the clocks given a reference frame. Ie. If there were 2 clones who lived in either reference frame (earth or the tower) given the same exact conditions they would die at the same actual time.

IMO rant: I don't think in the end it is worthwhile whatsoever to come to a 'who is right or wrong' answer as relativity is used as a practical tool. As someone mentioned it isn't concerned with the actual nature of time itself (a 'meta' discussion), it is concerned with theoretically modelling time for practical, pragmatic uses. It is when these theoretical models are used as proof that they describe the factual nature of time that they're overextended. Ie. special and general relativity is very clever maths that can be used for practical purposes yet says nothing about the actual movement of time as discussed by actualists.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/2/11 11:24 PM as a reply to Matt L.
Matt Lowrey:

In relativity (not special) time dilation is said to occur in the following way: gravity warps space-time the closer you are to a massive object such that a clock on earth will tick at a different speed relative to a clock further away from the earth eg. clock on a tall tower extending out to space. It is factually verified that the clocks tick at different speeds given a reference frame: that is to say if you're on earth you would observe the tower clock to move faster than your local clock BUT if you're on the tower you would observe the earth clock to move slower than the local clock - so given the reference frame (earth or tower) the local clock is the 'correct' time. What does this mean in terms of actualism versus relativity? It means that actual time isn't moving at a different speed (actual time is not moving at all), it is just observed to be by the clocks given a reference frame.


What is "actual time" in the context of your example? What does "actual time" refer to?

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/3/11 12:40 AM as a reply to Nad A..
Nad A.:
ManZ A:
Well here's my take on it. I don't think that it being perpetually now is the same as time not passing. There's just not a feeling of time passing. In actuality time does pass, the clock ticks. It's just not felt to pass. Time actually passing and feeling it to pass are two different things. The feeling in this case (and pretty much the entire affective faculty) is redundant. It being perpetually now means that one can only ever experience now. One cannot experience two different times now (and whatever you experience then would also be now). That's just bizarre to even think about. This reminds me of the Hurricane Ranch discussion where Tarin tells of a time when Richard (or Peter?) pointed to a clock and says something along the lines of "There is movement yet there is nothing that moves" (or something like that). Maybe need to give that a re-listen.


Yes but note that, as with the 'infinite universe' issue, Richard takes his experience not just to mean that the 'real world' time-passing feeling is absent from AF experiencing... he uses it to make a scientific claim about the universe and tries to criticise Einstein's theory of relativity because of it.

If the newer actualists and actually free won't be doing that then do you have any ideas why the first actually-free person did? Poor education? Is he lacking critical thinking skills? Some other flaw in his personality which can remain even after AF?


Oh okay nvm. I thought we were talking about the feeling of time passing. I haven't read anything on relativity by Richard. So perhaps I'll comment after I read up on that (and relativity xD).

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/3/11 10:45 AM as a reply to Nad A..
Nad A.:
Mikha Rlin:
maybe the atoms are moving/spinning relatively faster thus the clock is spinning relatively faster.


If abolutely everything in an environment (all particles, all atoms, all bodies, all energy) was moving/changing slower then how would that be different to 'time' slowing down?


As I understand it, in one environment (one that is in speed relative to other environment) an atom clock may have spun 4 times while in the other environment it have spun 5 times.

Can I ask, what is 'time' for you?

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/4/11 11:06 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

yet, the calculations gotten from the theory of special relativity are required for GPS to work.

so it would seem that time does indeed pass differently for different observers... yet in a PCE it is obvious that time doesn't pass at all. what gives? why would perfectly synchronized clocks start getting out of sync if you place them in orbit around the earth instead of in one room on the earth?


This is over my head, but I read this today and thought it might be interesting.

RICHARD: The ... um ... ‘the evidence’ in this particular instance is what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say (and not ‘the evidence’ regarding a magazine columnist) ... and what I found interesting was that he says Lorentzian relativity (where velocity is subsumed under time and space, in contrast to Einsteinian relativity subsuming time and space under velocity), is not only the more simple *theory* to represent the process the GPS operates by – and not only for pragmatic reasons – but is of major importance for the future of physics.
Some years ago, whilst in a government office for bureaucratic reasons, I noticed a rather droll sign (which could very well have been a bumper sticker) propped up on a nearby clerk’s desk which asked what would happen if one were to switch on the headlights in a space-ship travelling at the speed of light.
RESPONDENT: I find ‘Lorentizian relativity’ interesting too – as the concept is new to me.
RICHARD: May I ask what it is that you find interesting about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about Lorentzian relativity?
The reason I ask is because, being but a lay-person, I cannot mathematically know whether Mr. Clifford Will is right, in regards Einsteinian relativity being the better model for the GPS, or whether Mr. Tom Van Flandern is right, in regards Lorentzian relativity being the better model for the GPS, and, apart from drawing attention to the fact that there are (at least) two models being proposed, I am suggesting it is important to remember they are both models (just as the various theories regarding the sub-atomic postulates of quantum theory, for example, also are).
What is actually happening to the rubidium and caesium in the clocks on board the satellites – why such highly reactive chemical elements ‘tick’ faster than when on earth in a stronger gravitational field – may very well be entirely something else, of course, as mathematical models are only models ... could it be that the measure of time (the rubidium and caesium in this instance) is what is ‘ticking’ faster and not time itself advancing more quickly?
I only mention this because this moment has no duration here in this actual world.

- http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-time2.htm

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/4/11 11:20 AM as a reply to Martin Potter.
Martin Potter:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

yet, the calculations gotten from the theory of special relativity are required for GPS to work.

so it would seem that time does indeed pass differently for different observers... yet in a PCE it is obvious that time doesn't pass at all. what gives? why would perfectly synchronized clocks start getting out of sync if you place them in orbit around the earth instead of in one room on the earth?


This is over my head, but I read this today and thought it might be interesting.

RICHARD: The ... um ... ‘the evidence’ in this particular instance is what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say (and not ‘the evidence’ regarding a magazine columnist) ... and what I found interesting was that he says Lorentzian relativity (where velocity is subsumed under time and space, in contrast to Einsteinian relativity subsuming time and space under velocity), is not only the more simple *theory* to represent the process the GPS operates by – and not only for pragmatic reasons – but is of major importance for the future of physics.
Some years ago, whilst in a government office for bureaucratic reasons, I noticed a rather droll sign (which could very well have been a bumper sticker) propped up on a nearby clerk’s desk which asked what would happen if one were to switch on the headlights in a space-ship travelling at the speed of light.
RESPONDENT: I find ‘Lorentizian relativity’ interesting too – as the concept is new to me.
RICHARD: May I ask what it is that you find interesting about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about Lorentzian relativity?
The reason I ask is because, being but a lay-person, I cannot mathematically know whether Mr. Clifford Will is right, in regards Einsteinian relativity being the better model for the GPS, or whether Mr. Tom Van Flandern is right, in regards Lorentzian relativity being the better model for the GPS, and, apart from drawing attention to the fact that there are (at least) two models being proposed, I am suggesting it is important to remember they are both models (just as the various theories regarding the sub-atomic postulates of quantum theory, for example, also are).
What is actually happening to the rubidium and caesium in the clocks on board the satellites – why such highly reactive chemical elements ‘tick’ faster than when on earth in a stronger gravitational field – may very well be entirely something else, of course, as mathematical models are only models ... could it be that the measure of time (the rubidium and caesium in this instance) is what is ‘ticking’ faster and not time itself advancing more quickly?
I only mention this because this moment has no duration here in this actual world.

- http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-time2.htm


ah nice, i was looking for more discussions about this. from the wikipdia on lorentzian ether theory:
Wikipedia:
Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment. However, in LET the existence of an undetectable ether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET. Another important reason for preferring SR is that the new understanding of space and time was also fundamental for the development of general relativity.

undetectable ether may be the infinite/eternal space/time. im talking out o my ass here of course =P. i think understanding that they are all models is the important thing, here

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/4/11 2:44 PM as a reply to Mikha Rlin.
Mikha Rlin:
Nad A.:
Mikha Rlin:
maybe the atoms are moving/spinning relatively faster thus the clock is spinning relatively faster.


If abolutely everything in an environment (all particles, all atoms, all bodies, all energy) was moving/changing slower then how would that be different to 'time' slowing down?


As I understand it, in one environment (one that is in speed relative to other environment) an atom clock may have spun 4 times while in the other environment it have spun 5 times.


What I'm getting at is that you seem to be suggesting - similar to what Matt Lowrey was saying if I've understood him correctly - that despite appearances/phenomena behaving as relativity predicts, there is still an absolute or 'actual' time - which could be still as the PCE suggests. That seems to be surplus to requirements though, there is nothing there to suggest the separate existence of actual/absolute time... no reason to posit it. There is as little need for the "actual time" model as there is for the "ether" model.

In relativity theory, there is no separate 'actual' or 'absolute' time - space and time are parts of the same malleable fabric.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/4/11 3:16 PM as a reply to Nad A..
Nad A.:
What I'm getting at is that you seem to be suggesting - similar to what Matt Lowrey was saying if I've understood him correctly - that despite appearances/phenomena behaving as relativity predicts, there is still an absolute or 'actual' time - which could be still as the PCE suggests. That seems to be surplus to requirements though, there is nothing there to suggest the separate existence of actual/absolute time... no reason to posit it. There is as little need for the "actual time" model as there is for the "ether" model.

In relativity theory, there is no separate 'actual' or 'absolute' time - space and time are parts of the same malleable fabric.

that supposes there is some fabric that is malleable, no? not sure what you mean by 'surplus to requirements'.

so you either believe that time is eternal and space is absolute and they don't move, or you believe that space and time are part of some malleable fabric, or you don't believe anything and get on with practicing =P. the latter seems the best choice as the first two haven't been scientifically proven yet (relativity is a theory; i haven't seen experiments done to prove time is eternal and space is absolute).

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/4/11 4:03 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Nad A.:
What I'm getting at is that you seem to be suggesting - similar to what Matt Lowrey was saying if I've understood him correctly - that despite appearances/phenomena behaving as relativity predicts, there is still an absolute or 'actual' time - which could be still as the PCE suggests. That seems to be surplus to requirements though, there is nothing there to suggest the separate existence of actual/absolute time... no reason to posit it. There is as little need for the "actual time" model as there is for the "ether" model.

In relativity theory, there is no separate 'actual' or 'absolute' time - space and time are parts of the same malleable fabric.

not sure what you mean by 'surplus to requirements'.


Superfluous.

so you either believe that time is eternal and space is absolute and they don't move, or you believe that space and time are part of some malleable fabric, or you don't believe anything and get on with practicing =P. the latter seems the best choice as the first two haven't been scientifically proven yet (relativity is a theory; i haven't seen experiments done to prove time is eternal and space is absolute).


One has all observations supporting it, makes precise predictions and allows us to use helpful technology like GPS as you pointed out. What does the other theory have?

Richard's approach - 'my experience is the absolute' - is exactly like something I'd expect from someone coming from a spiritualist background. In that lies the possibility that others will interpret the experience differently.

I'm still wondering whether the other actually-free people agree with Richard about the universe. It's entirely possible that the others will say that the feeling of boundaries disappears along with the feeling of time passing, or say that although it seems from their new mode of perception that the universe is infinite, that the actual nature of the universe is for scientific methods to determine. I guess we'll never know if they only answer method-related questions and stay away from the forums where other topics are welcome.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/4/11 4:10 PM as a reply to Nad A..
Nad A.:
the first two haven't been scientifically proven yet (relativity is a theory


Also wanted to point out that in science, a theory is never 'proven', only falsified. Relativity still stands today.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/4/11 4:47 PM as a reply to Nad A..
Matt Lowrey:
As someone mentioned it isn't concerned with the actual nature of time itself (a 'meta' discussion), it is concerned with theoretically modelling time for practical, pragmatic uses. It is when these theoretical models are used as proof that they describe the factual nature of time that they're overextended. Ie. special and general relativity is very clever maths that can be used for practical purposes yet says nothing about the actual movement of time as discussed by actualists.


truth. what is space and time, anyway? what do physicists who buy into relativity define them as? saying "a malleable fabric" doesn't really say much. what's it made of? how come it can bend? i don't know much advanced physics but i suspect those questions aren't really answered or considered practical to answer. thus we're back at square one - beliefs based on reports of a direct (subjective) experience (as in a PCE or when AF), a direct understanding coming from said direct experience (which may be incorrect, sure), or on an over-extension of a theory (as Matt has already said)

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/4/11 5:15 PM as a reply to Nad A..
Nad A.:
Nad A.:
the first two haven't been scientifically proven yet (relativity is a theory


Also wanted to point out that in science, a theory is never 'proven', only falsified. Relativity still stands today.

i've got a theory... gravity makes atoms and electrons move more quickly somehow. thus a clock depending on the motion of said atoms, in a higher gravitational field, will tell time faster than one in a lower gravitational field. perhaps someone in a higher gravitational field will die faster than someone in a lower one, since his atoms are moving more quickly.

my theory is just as not-disprovable as general relativity currently is, and it leads to all the same useful stuff that relativity does. and it says as much, too (replace 'move more quickly somehow' with 'time passes more quickly somehow' and you have converted my theory to general relativity). so why do you prefer one over the other?

actually, speaking from a strictly logical standpoint, i find my theory a lot easier to understand - it has a lot less assumptions, i mean (less superfluous stuff). instead of supposing there is this thing 'time' that somehow defines how everything moves, and 'time' is affected by gravity, you instead have things that are affected by gravity, period. cutting out the middleman to make the theory simpler. and as you can't measure time except by noticing how things move.. i can't currently think of a way to show one is more correct than another. perhaps if we found a 'time particle', or a 'space particle', but i doubt those exist (since what would they be moving around in, then?)

what is your conception of time, anyway, that it exists as a thing independent of objects? speaking not in terms of relativity or whatever here, just in simple terms. what would 'the bending of space' be as something independent of effects noticeable in the particles in the 'space' that is 'bent'?

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
4/4/11 7:17 PM as a reply to Nad A..
Nad A.:
What I'm getting at is that you seem to be suggesting - similar to what Matt Lowrey was saying if I've understood him correctly - that despite appearances/phenomena behaving as relativity predicts, there is still an absolute or 'actual' time - which could be still as the PCE suggests. That seems to be surplus to requirements though, there is nothing there to suggest the separate existence of actual/absolute time... no reason to posit it. There is as little need for the "actual time" model as there is for the "ether" model.

In relativity theory, there is no separate 'actual' or 'absolute' time - space and time are parts of the same malleable fabric.


I don't understand what 'time' (nor actual/absolute) is. I do see that, lets say, after one object had passed it took 3 times for clock to tick before another object passed.

What's time? It's just a word to me. What is the time in where you live? Oh, it's 12:00am? Here it's 11:00am. The best researches say the earth had spun 65 million or so times around the sun since dinosaurs had been extincted.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/25/11 2:11 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
so it would seem that time does indeed pass differently for different observers... yet in a PCE it is obvious that time doesn't pass at all. what gives?
This is just relativity: for a person who has dispelled from the concept of time everything but its nature as a practical tool, then a watch and schedule suffice, the time mindset can go. The person can be here&now. If here and now=Y and X=past, Z= future, then there is only Y in here and now, no movement to/from X and Z. So it seems still, or like flowing stillness. (Like a person falling in a windowless elevator traveling at a constant speed will not perceive motion).

Time is a unit of measure developed from self-awareness and self-preservation, i.e., developing solar dials like Newgrange to optimize agricultural conditions in order to prevent winter starvation; planning ahead for favorable conditions surrounding childbirth; and various species consciously caching food for "later". This becomes for humans "time is money" where currency buys conditions of self-preservation (clean water, food and air, shelter, care, etc).

So, time is foremost an effect and measure of sentient self-preservation (e.g., planning for success) and has become a practical tool for gauging/anticipating displacement (e.g., clocking speed, faire rendez-vous, GPS).

It seems perfect(ly unavoidable) to see that GPS derives form Maths derives from solar-agricultural planning derives from cave art derives from self-preservation derives from self-awareness derives from distinction from form (that which has come into being and is now relative (to something else) derives from formless which formlessness can be/is as abundant with objects as right this moment, and is rendered plural through relative personal perception.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/25/11 2:36 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
So time is an idea of our nature (of self-preservation and altruism) that is used to measure and transform our existence. It is purely conceptual.

Gravity, on the other hand, describes a condition in which our nature exists (although how we (are able to) describe it is entirely of our nature.

An example: rocks do not respond according to concepts of time (we note their changes in time). Rocks do respond according to the effect of gravity (although perhaps if we are not here to perceive them existing in accordance with gravity then they float? ).

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/25/11 2:55 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Considering that time is relative permits another field of study: re-proving equations that have only been proven by using time (t) without (t) in the equation.

So, to take a classic example used to describe 2-D reality to 3-D students (us), imagine we are living on a plane as 2-D creatures. If a rock passes through our plane, we "see" it as a blob growing and shrinking on our plane over time. So, as 2-D beings, we cannot conceive of 3-D, but we conceive of a contiguous blob arising and passing away in time. If time is removed from this experience, is there another way to describe what occurred?

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/25/11 2:59 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
And, at a personal level of mindfulness/actualism/here&now, if time drops from framing a contiguous mind (it being relegated to the cellphone, watch or clock) does the experience of actuality/here&now change?

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/25/11 4:12 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Hi Katy,

I think you are missing the point. Actualism and the Theory or Relativity directly contradict. (unless you're saying something else)

I think, before we argue about who's right (Richard or Einstein), we should first understand or at least read about what Special Relativity is. I myself have only read a little, and thus am a hypocrite.



Basically from what I understand, when you calculate the distance between two points in space you use two coordinates, each coordinate having 3 dimensions, XYZ.

Somewhere along the line, someone decided that instead of just calculating the distance between two points in SPACE, they would calculate the distance between two points in SPACE-TIME, thus finding a "space-time interval". The catch was that they could not incorporate another "time" coordinate into the equation because time was of a different nature (not the same type of variable?). But they ended up converting it using the speed of light (lulz, speed of light again).

With the added time coordinate, the only thing that had to remain constant was the SI interval, but now anything else can change.

Which is basically why a lot of wacky shit can happen in Special Relativity.

So according to Special Relativity you can for example have a laptop that is facing me, and then facing you at the same time. Or for example we could see a person drop two balls at the same time, yet from one perspective they drop at the same time and another they drop at different times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_special_relativity

Now if you were to run these consequences by Richard he would be like: "Fuck no that's not possible". (Or maybe he wouldn't actually say that, lawl)

But yeah, that's the problem.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/26/11 9:54 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
A friend referred me to the writings of a Julian Barbour tonight for "timeless physics". It looks to be a useful consideration of actuality without the influence of the affective grid (time). I downloaded it and will post anything that seems relevant to the thread.

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/27/11 2:45 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
The lady is correct about time being not necessary for many of the grand equations of physics in the end, and for further light reading:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion

Daniel

time is an illusion scientific american

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/27/11 12:19 PM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
I will look at the article, though I am convinced personally of the affectation of time (though this does not rule out irregular dimension(s) which can be experienced as temporal durations - as if various inhales and exhales of varying densities were passing through everything (this is just an example of how another dimension could work, not a fixed proposal).

Meanwhile, I would add that the simplest time equation (which comes to me) is speed (=d/t) and that the human conception of our perception of motion (an assumption) is challenged when there is no time in the math equation. If there is no time, then "motion" is describing something, but it may not (just) be motion.

I was watching the new Aryton Senna film last week ("Senna") and seeing how Senna's sense of divinity is developed at the wheel, while racing.

While time is affective, perception of motion is part of our physiology, our evolution - and this leads to concepts of motion (even the assumption that motion is actual and describes itself in its entirety - when motion may in fact be the tip of the iceberg, the tip of which we can perceive directly if not completely). The math-sans-time suggests that our assumption of motion is incomplete or incorrect.

Because perception of motion is hardwired, it is harder to "escape" an assumption of motion and harder to revisit the concept creatively (whereas time is affective, "soft wired" and can be more easily dispelled).

Perception of motion begins to unravel when travel occurs faster than speed of natural human motion (i.e., a full tilt run). Prior to the creation of motors, there developed a spirituality of animals which carry us (i.e., the Wind Horse). Change of perception will not work (as not as effectively) in staring at rail ties traversed by a train or windows in speed boat bottoms - those images convey 2-Dimensionality at speed; it requires that all three dimensions be sped up beyond natural human speeds and to occur at eye level to start loosening assumptions about motion - and it can take, yes, time for that loosening to occur.


Today, IMAX movies (3-D speedy presentations of flight) often inspires "ahhhs" from the audience. Hobbies include actual flight like hand-gliding, wingsuiting, sky-diving, racing. As I was describing to Jill earlier, if air travel involved vertical long pill structures traveling more closely to the ground (to enable perception of speed) in which each of us as passengers could experience reality coming at us quickly, then our brain mechanisms for assuming motion would become wobbly - air travel would likely be more enjoyable because it would be experienced as a relatively safe opportunity (if vertical pill planes can be stable flying vessels - which are not reported interestingly in UFO reports) to relax the mind. Pervasive institutions based on the affective grid (time) and the illusory experience (motion) would start to change to reflect this understanding of motion (and time), just as relativity changed the course of the 20th century.


To sum up, the engrained, physiologically based concept of motion can broken down at speed [and be felt as] mind-dissolution with expanding wonder (or reified as fear).

Knowing this, can one's assumptions about motion right now cease (in the same way time is relatively easy to dispel)? I think it can, but it takes more work as a physiological must be suspended. Meditation and chemicals are known to deflate the mind's grasp of motion (and time) [while operating at native human speeds]. Yay.

[Re-posted, may be reposted again]
[Edited for typos, syntax]

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/28/11 2:56 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Experience is relative
but how do we experience the passage of time
the buddhas 12 links explains
time and self cannot be separated

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/28/11 10:37 PM as a reply to Jeff Grove.
Hi Jeff.

time and self cannot be separated

Yup. For me, realizing that time forms from self-awareness and self-preservation had the practical result that any arising sense of "time" is personally informative (just as breathing awareness informs one's own meditative development). It was akin to realizing the three characteristics in an object that I assumed (ignorance): entering the object through a thought concerning agricultural and math and time-tracking, seeing the abatement of past suffering such as starvation through contemplating future conditions, and exiting on the thought, "time is a product of self-awareness and desire for self's own continuation."

The exit-thought is not any less ignorant than the entrance-thought, and any thrill that arose from dispelling time in this way is short-lived. (At the time, it was personally key to stabilizing equanimity). Both ignorances (the assumption of time and the apparently logical conclusion regarding time) cascade on perception of other objects.

While unable to dispel ignorance at this point, there is its "unknowing" quality (otherwise expressed: naivety) that relaxes the big governing alpha-self (I often compare sense-of-self to a dog that appreciates a good pack leader (an alpha), because a dog can relax and drop its pressure to be the alpha when one of its own fulfills the alpha role). Apperception seems to be the simplest, most relaxing expression of unknowing (and this statement is also ignorant).

*

Taking "perception of motion" as object has the same result (as realizing "time"), though has palpable constituents (due to direct physiological underlyers). It has physiological sensory effects and affective realizations, i.e., (i) "flow" (a sense of supra-personal or null-personal ultra-smooth action in timeless continuity), or (ii) "skipping" still-frames (the seeing of an object suddenly displaced (versus visually-smooth continuity of displacement)). Perhaps (i) and (ii) are the opposite poles of our perception of motion.

Skipping still-frames of objects is less reported, and is directly hazardous to one's well-being (therefore, as a species, we vastly exhibit the "visually-smooth continuity of displacement" perception of motion). There are fortunately few persons who inform medical understanding of sustained akinetopsia.

Flow, however, is commonly reported and is often celebrated/cherished. People report amazement with their bodies during flow: "How is this happening so perfectly?" "Flow" dovetails too nicely with "stream entry" to not mention it. A supra-personalism: something "beyond me" may be sensed, or a null-personalism: something "without me" may be sensed.

Lastly, if any of this matters (outside of curiosity and creativity), it matters to me to the practical extent "assumption" is noted. On what basis is the assumption, and what is assuming?

[edited: added hyperlink]

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/29/11 9:43 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
an exercise that was useful
stop pay attention to the present (just senses) is there any sense of a separate time dimension or space dimension or do they both occur somehow at once
attend to a moment in the future is there anticipation of the future a feeling/memory
same with the past is there concern with the past
now just the living present
where is the future where is the past the horizon gets no closer


katy steger:
"unknowing"


life 's spell

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/30/11 3:46 AM as a reply to Jeff Grove.
where is the future where is the past the horizon gets no closer

Like the bus you just missed

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
10/31/11 3:29 AM as a reply to Hazel Kathleen Strange.
Hi Hazel,

I should have clarified that the my response was focused on the experience of the passage of time or the feeling of a duration of time. Happy to discuss

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
11/1/11 4:29 AM as a reply to Jeff Grove.
Hi Jeff,

I live in the country and buses are infrequent - sometimes once a week. Your post brought into clear recollection of a time a once a week bus was missed and the movement of the mind going through the 'past thoughts' and the bus is ever receding - the 'future thoughts' and next week's bus is never closer for today and the present experience of the sensations in the body.

Sorry it was such an idiosyncratic response - very narcissistic of me!:blink
peace
H

RE: relativity and eternal time
Answer
11/1/11 9:40 PM as a reply to Hazel Kathleen Strange.
Hi Hazel

Yes

if theres a strong desire to be somewhere we are suddenly more attentive to the passage of time. Even if we are on time to catch the bus theres an urgency for the buses arrival, to fulfil that desire, uncounsciously increasing the speed we walk, the heart and breath rate increases, all this energy feeds/is the desire for its impending arrival, generating imaginings of the future of having missed the bus and reflection of past actions that could have been taken to not miss the bus - even though we have not yet missed the bus. Suffering.

katy mentioned the "unknowing" the immediacy of the spontaneous unfoldment of the sensuous Where "the the movement of the mind" that you mention is not found. Only the present, the only place I can ever miss the bus


enjoy your day
Jeff