Philosophy Discussion Forums

In another thread about antimatter Wanabe said:

I contend that time not existing has a higher probability of being correct.

It's never been proven yet most people take the "back to the future thing" as a part of a mystery science will solve sooner or later.

2 concepts linked to time keep returning

• Time traveling

• Rejuvenating

It differs when we look at a person going back in time or when we "expose" someone to the effect of going back in time.

What would be your opinion if time travel or "reverse" time would be a possibility, is it likely we can travel back in time yet not suffer physical consequences?

And what about things we learned? How do events relate to information stored in our brain and is consciousness able to travel through time.

Edit:

I was hoping on a little loose conversation but I guess people interested in science are just that.

So I'll get straight to the point where I would have hoped this conversation would lead too.

Since time is relative and someone named Einstein once said "space and time are forms of intuition, which can no more be divorced from consciousness than can our concepts of color, shape, or size."

I am inclined to think that we are incapable of ascending above a certain level of development, our inability to let go of the notion of time will eventually hamper our efforts to increase our knowledge.

Just as we are incapable of imagining a new color we cannot truly think without time, it would either result in a notion that it would be happening so fast that it could be considered instantaneous or it would be something so slow that it would never happen.

Now if something was eternal I would assume it would have no (conscious) concept of time so it seems to me to that to be able to step away from the delusion of time one needs to be immortal.

So am I right to assume that our own mortality is the reason we cannot truly comprehend everything, and not our (limited?) capacity to reason?

"Answered" in the order asked.

Itmattersnot wrote:What would be your opinion if time travel or "reverse" time would be a possibility, is it likely we can travel back in time yet not suffer physical consequences?

Physical consequences, something would “suffer” some kind of change yes (there is always change). However, time is not real, so we don't have to worry about that.

Itmattersnot wrote:And what about things we learned? How do events relate to information stored in our brain and is consciousness able to travel through time.

We would retain all those things we "know". We remember some of what we experience. "Consciousness" is able to travel through time, at the pace of events.

Itmattersnot wrote:I am inclined to think that we are incapable of ascending above a certain level of development, our inability to let go of the notion of time will eventually hamper our efforts to increase our knowledge.

Agreed, if in fact we hold on to the notion of time.

Itmattersnot wrote:Just as we are incapable of imagining a new color we cannot truly think without time, it would either result in a notion that it would be happening so fast that it could be considered instantaneous or it would be something so slow that it would never happen.

We can imagine any color(If you would like to "see" new ones: stop looking and start listening{it's all energy}, if you want to "see" even more, feel. Even more; become energy), new or existing we like. We can also think with out time(remember the pace of things while having fun{where you loose track of time}, just like that). If time does not exist, speed as "we" think of it does not exist.

All is eternal it merely changes form.

Itmattersnot wrote:So am I right to assume that our own mortality is the reason we cannot truly comprehend everything, and not our (limited?) capacity to reason?

If one views them self as mortal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I request that this be moved to the e/m section this is other things than science.

wanabe wrote: We can imagine any color(If you would like to "see" new ones: stop looking and start listening{it's all energy}, if you want to "see" even more, feel. Even more; become energy), new or existing we like. We can also think with out time(remember the pace of things while having fun{where you loose track of time}, just like that). If time does not exist, speed as "we" think of it does not exist..

I like the way you stress the point that most limits are only there because of our own inaptitude to adapt to another way of thinking.

wanabe wrote:All is eternal it merely changes form.

I agree, not just on the part that we have Isaac Newton to thank for some clarity on that but I like to think that the sum of all parts amount to the source of creation.

wanabe wrote:If one views them self as mortal.

I do consider myself mortal, becoming a part of the universe as we know it, reincarnation or going to heaven would not change my view on that.

wanabe wrote:I request that this be moved to the e/m section this is other things than science.

I have to apologize that in my enthusiasm to start this thread I did not place it in the right section.

Our limits come from not thinking.

Things are not simply the sum of their parts; if they were the zombies of "night of the living dead" would be a reality.

You agree that all is eternal, that it merely changes form but view your self as mortal... Very well, mortal..

wanabe wrote:Our limits come from not thinking.

There is only so much one can achieve in a lifetime, although I like the thought we could eventually achieve anything.

I however do think there are limits to what we can achieve as a homo sapiens.

wanabe wrote:Things are not simply the sum of their parts; if they were the zombies of "night of the living dead" would be a reality.

While things are by no means the sum of their parts I actually meant the sum of ALL parts.

It is my believe that everything comes from one origin, since creation had to start somewhere.

wanabe wrote:You agree that all is eternal, that it merely changes form but view your self as mortal...

Yes, in my opinion it is a good thing that we are mortals.

With a longer life span comes an increasingly bigger responsibility towards society, to my own perception it seems we can barely account for the lives we currently live.

wanabe wrote:Very well, mortal..

The concussive force of sword striking hell-mouth rocked him to the core: "Well,God," he snarled,"are we out of our league,here?" ( From: "Beyond Wizardwall" written by Janet Morris )

We can eventually achieve anything, and we will not always be "homo sapiens".

The sum of all parts is implied in the statement "sum of their parts". further more they must work together(this is not a part, it is not physical), this is not inherent. Creation did start somewhere; everywhere! and everywhere (is)expanded(ing)!

It is a good thing that many people see them selves as mortals because those are the same people that can't handle the responsibility of immortality; or other lesser, earthly things.

wanabe wrote:It is a good thing that many people see them selves as mortals because those are the same people that can't handle the responsibility of immortality; or other lesser, earthly things.

I do not believe there is a single mortal on earth who could handle the responsibility of immortality.

But most people seem to handle mortality quite well, if we can get to the point where we take responsibility for those "other lesser, earthly things" we could actually start thinking of evolving beyond homo sapiens.

Perhaps not handle it (few have tried so it's difficult to say), but accept the responsibility of such, some are ready.

I concur, however "beyond" homo sapiens. What are we "beyond" that we are not just simply different from? Meaning we could be come more biologically evolved and different, but our maturity(responsibility acceptance "level") may stay the same.

wanabe wrote: I concur, however "beyond" homo sapiens. What are we "beyond" that we are not just simply different from? Meaning we could be come more biologically evolved and different, but our maturity(responsibility acceptance "level") may stay the same.

It may stay the same, but it seems unlikely that we wouldn't attain another level of maturity as well.

Since this topic was about time, and us "homo sapiens" still perceive it to be linear it is easiest to treat it as such.

So lets step forward to a time where life standard for all is equal and nations are entwined to a point one could speak of a global institution.

People would start looking for things other than materialistic gain en masse, I would expect the experience would change us in more than just biological sense.

Unlikely as it might seem go though a biological change and not have our maturity change; it is not an imperative for our evolution.

What is easiest or simplest is not necessarily correct, it just might barely work enough to be acceptable.

The only way for us to be equal("never" will, never has) is to step back to when we first became homo sapiens. With the simplicity of the technology and "education" it was possible then, to be equal at least amongst a few million men.

Now we have all these wonderful things at certain peoples disposal to spread out amongst the BILLIONS or to rip away from certain people.

There will always be people out to gain material. A global institution would be the best way(excuse) to have lots of material in one place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This post seems to be going on a tangent, you should change the name of the post to reflect the tangent, or we should continue this in a another thread.

wanabe wrote:
It is a good thing that many people see them selves as mortals because those are the same people that can't handle the responsibility of immortality; or other lesser, earthly things.

itmattersnot wrote:
I do not believe there is a single mortal on earth who could handle the responsibility of immortality.

I agree with itmattersnot, even though I think we go on..after death..does not mean anyone can handle the responsibility of immortality, or that they are not here now and mortal. Immortality on this level isn`t even about responsibility.

Itmattersnot wrote:But most people seem to handle mortality quite well, if we can get to the point where we take responsibility for those "other lesser, earthly things" we could actually start thinking of evolving beyond homo sapiens.

That's not how evolution works. Organisms adapt to suit their environment. Animals that are well-adapted, do not need to evolve...

I tend to see time as motion slowed down in order to matter. Like when something becomes a thought, it establishes itself, or like a dream that only takes a second, yet feels ages. In this way I also see the essence of Dark Matter and Dark energy at work. When I do, I know why everything is in it's own time, and why we appear to be individuals who are both attentive and attentive seeking. Dreams are like that, we seek to get out of them, or seek to remain in them, for it is them we seek in us. I guess.