|
 Alan Stone
Corpus
Registered: 11/23/02
Posts: 986
Loc: Ten feet up
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
|
 Maya, space-time and scepticism. 
#2014755 - 10/16/03 01:34 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Bernard Russel published his "five minutes" theory in - I think - the seventies. This theory is categorised under 'radical scepticism' and supposes the world could have been created five minutes ago, along with everything on it and there would be no way of knowing. Our memories would have been implanted into our brains five minutes ago, old people would have been created old, environmental effects would have been put in place... etc, etc. We know this to be untrue, but logically, we can't prove it isn't the way things work.
Next in line: the Hindu view that the world is Maya, a figment of the real world, also found in Plato's cave allegory. There are two ways about proving this theory. A priori (based on pure reason) and a posteriori (based on experience).
A priori, in Hinduism, Maya is a consequence of focusing on the sensed objects to such a degree that the beholder perceives them to be real, when all they really are are illusions caused by the senses. The beholder becomes attached to the objects, strengthening the ego.
A posteriori, humans suppose time and space exist, because this is what seems evident. Then, science is developed. Skipping a small timeframe, Newton and Leibniz both produce a view on the nature of space. Leibniz claims space is a consequence of matter, Newton claims space exists on its own. Newton's view becomes concensus. Skipping yet another bit of history, the nerve system is researched. The conclusion is, the world as we see it is a visualistation our brains produces. Perhaps Leibniz wasn't wrong after all...
When meditating or under the influence of psychedelics, reality can break apart and become apparent in its unity. Space and time are distorted, and are perceived very differently.
Four methods (one purely dogmatic, three practical) all come to at least the conclusion that space is no constant.
To this, I add my own theory. Time is a consequence of movement. If there were no movement, there would be no possible way of perceiving time. HOWever, if space doesn't exist, can movement exist? Obviously not. Ergo: space-time itself is an illusion.
My question to you is: is there any way to disprove this theory?
EDIT: spelling.
--------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle
Edited by Alan Stone (10/19/03 03:38 PM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
 Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Alan Stone]
#2014818 - 10/16/03 01:50 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting... giving this some thought, but here are my initial knee-jerk thoughts on it...
> Time is a consequence of movement.
I would distill this a bit further. Time is a consequence of duality. Movement implies a difference, here from there, which implies duality. Space works the same way, defining duality. Space-time becomes an illusion when viewed from the standpoint of oneness.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Seuss]
#2015005 - 10/16/03 02:47 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Then there is no reason why I can't create a double while I am sleeping and visit my friends in Wisconsin.. it is all an illusion we can shape. I will further my attempts tonight, heh..
Peace.
--------------------
 
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
  
 
|
Spokesman
The HighPhilosopher
Registered: 08/05/03
Posts: 847
Loc: New Jersey U.S.
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: fireworks_god]
#2015060 - 10/16/03 02:59 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Acording to the Summerian Gods, the past, present and future all take place at once. I belive time is created by our brains. Our brains slowly evolved to put time in the perspective that it is right now. It might not have been the same back when all there was living was bacteria or small animals. Before life sprouted up in this universe was there really time?? Who perceived it? Matter? this would have ment that if their was no living brains to give the illusion of time then a fraction of a second would be no diffrent than a trillion centuries. The Big Bang could just be a second-long spark in the void that has already cooled and turned off a long time ago. But since our brains have to give us enough "time" for us to hunt down food and consume energy then we perseive these experiences and events at the speed we do. Maybe we're not living life right now but just remembering it. This was the Summerian explination for the Gods knowing the future.
--------------------
|
 Keyannki
newbie
Registered: 10/15/03
Posts: 40
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: fireworks_god]
#2015325 - 10/16/03 03:58 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
A priori, in Hinduism, Maya is a consequence of focusing on the sensed objects to such a degree that the beholder perceives them to be real, when all they really are are illusions caused by the senses. The beholder becomes attached to the objects, strengthening the ego.
this is claiming anything is an illusion? Nah. this is the same with one vedantist on egoism - bunch of brain teasers and convoluted reasoning to me. all she had to do was express the ego is about past life in one sentence instead of implying sentence after sentence, article after article.
its periphery reasoning, indirectly regressing to the central subject.
A posteriori, humans suppose time and space exist, because this is what seems evident. Then, science is developed. Skipping a small
its the Big Bang of h-h model. it has been argued whether time preexists before the bang. the equation had a probability constant of the big bangs.
all these variables are needed to create a stable living system. zero-point + quanta + time + motion. this is isn't a good representation but relevant to zero-three geometry of H-H model.
i find its relativity with Numerology. aha check my other posts linking both H-H model (quantum cosmology) and ANT (my amalagamate numerology theory)
yet another bit of history, the nerve system reasearched. The conclusion is, the world as we see it is a visualistation our brains produces. Perhaps Leibniz wasn't wrong after all...
hmm.. point being? the brain is a big neurotransmitter. you can tweak the signal, change frequencies, and make it grow neurons. an all-encompassing analyzer / senser. For who? that' is the question.
illusion itself is about judging defined by ignorance, and limited cognizance. or just poor in explaining reality types. tantamount of claiming the big bang is pointless and is a fake{?}.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Keyannki]
#2015715 - 10/16/03 06:01 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
> Then there is no reason why I can't create a double while I am sleeping and visit my friends in Wisconsin.. it is all an illusion we can shape.
Exactly... of course, since you will be asleep, you won't be aware of it happening... 
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Seuss]
#2017178 - 10/17/03 04:38 AM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
Exactly... of course, since you will be asleep, you won't be aware of it happening...
Well, I am working on being aware of my new double while the real me sleeps.. the closest I have gotten so far (like last night, actually) was actually going to my parent's store in a dream, which is where I was trying to materialize.. cool, eh?
Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
Spokesman
The HighPhilosopher
Registered: 08/05/03
Posts: 847
Loc: New Jersey U.S.
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: fireworks_god]
#2017205 - 10/17/03 05:07 AM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Hey we can have fun with the power of our brains too, its not just about mathematics and figuring out the cause of existance. Why do you suppose we dream. Same reason we were provided with natural drugs in this planet, TO HAVE FUN!!
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Spokesman]
#2017217 - 10/17/03 05:22 AM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Hehe, yep, concern yourself with what you want..
Me, it is all about kick ass music, playing bass guitar, enjoying every minute here. I just can't fucking wait until it is recording, jamming with my band, and fucking performing in front of dedicated fans.. fuck yeah!
Episodes of the Simpsons don't hurt, either.
Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Alan Stone]
#2017334 - 10/17/03 06:47 AM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Suppose that time is a cosiquence of motion and the bang hasn'r happened yet. The primordial atom is flying through space. First would that even be possible? Could it spin on it's axis? If it could spin would it experiance a centripital force?
If time were dependant on motion it make for some interesting thinking in regards to the beginings of the universe. The primordial atom would have to be in motion in some way in order for the bang to happen. Or there would be enough matter in the universe plus at least one extra particle to reach a critical mass and explode. This cyclic universe would crunch all the matter less the one particle which is the timekeeper. It provides the motion while the rest reaches critical mass and explodes.
Or it rotates and that provides the motion. Although the rotation would be undetectable, inetia of the rotating mass would be the indication. But then what is the trigger?
I know, I know, it is all gibberish and I should read up on my physics.
--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Alan Stone]
#2017719 - 10/17/03 11:19 AM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alan Stone said:
Time is a consequence of movement. If there were no movement, there would be no possible way of perceiving time. HOWever, if space doesn't exist, can movement exist? Obviously not. Ergo: space-time itself is an illusion.
time isnt a result of movement, however its typically more conspicuous when there is movement. also, if there were no movement, how could there be life? it seems to me that life is dependent on movement on any scale, large or small. while the world we see is a visualization that our brains produce, its not simply created but rather interpreted. therefore under the influence of psychedelics space and time are not distorted, but rather the interpretations the human brain produces. whats left out of the conclusion that these four methods arrive at is that each of these creates an abnormal circumstance. therefore i dont agree with you when you say "space is no constant." Time on the other hand seems quite relative. time seems to vary day to day and minute to minute. time is highly dependent on one's activity and awareness of time. for example, when you're more unaware of time it seems to pass very quickly, and the opposite anytime you're more aware. think about the last day of school before summer vacation, in a really boring class with a clock on the front wall. when ive been in these situations time seems to have slowed almost to a stop. however, there have been times where ive been in an interesting conversation with someone, my thoughts completely focused on the conversation and the concept of time completely absent from my mind. at times like these, we could have been talking for a few hours and i wouldnt have known it. time to go to class, i'll finish my thoughts later...
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: ]
#2017728 - 10/17/03 11:25 AM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
> Time is a consequence of movement.
We could also claim that time is a consequence of consciousness. If I am unaware of time, does it exist?
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada 
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Seuss]
#2017766 - 10/17/03 11:40 AM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Time is a consequence of movement.
Not quite, I think. Time is a measurement of movement. Movement along the temporal dimension. Just as Length is a measurement of movement along one spatial dimension.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Spokesman
The HighPhilosopher
Registered: 08/05/03
Posts: 847
Loc: New Jersey U.S.
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Seuss]
#2017798 - 10/17/03 11:49 AM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
We could also claim that time is a consequence of consciousness. If I am unaware of time, does it exist?
No, exactly my point. If their is no living brain that percives time at any speeds or to remember it then a fraction of a secound is no diffrent than a trillion years of lifeless events.
Quote:
also, if there were no movement, how could there be life?
Plant life doesent need any movement. And air moves yet its not alive so idont think life and movement have anything to do with eachother.
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Spokesman]
#2017872 - 10/17/03 12:28 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
> Plant life doesent need any movement.
Say again? Plant life requires photons to produce energy through photosynthesis. Plant life requires intake of nutrients and water from the soil. Plant life requires carbon dioxide which is taken from the air. Dip a living plant in plastic so that it can no longer 'move' and see how long it lives.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
moogle
newbie
Registered: 10/03/03
Posts: 49
Last seen: 20 years, 5 months
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Seuss]
#2017915 - 10/17/03 12:49 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I've been entertaining the thought, for a while, that time is simply an abstract inverse to change. That is, if we supposed we lived in an unchanging universe, could we say that time passed within it? The only way to verify that time exists, is to observe stuff happening.
So, to articulate the question perhaps a little more clearly, is there really some universal clock ticking [or infinitely many relative clocks, if we invoke special relativity], or are we, as humans, simply attempting to relate magnitudes of change against one another? When you're watching a clock ticking, are you watching 'time' pass by, or are you simply watching a hand move around in a circle?
--------------------
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: moogle]
#2018152 - 10/17/03 02:16 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
from dictionary.com:
time n
1.
a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M.
e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.
the word time has a number of definitions and each of these definitions has a few sub-definitions. someone has said that time is a measurement. this is true, or at least it seems to be. the time you see on a clock only refers specifically to the time of day, or more specifically, how long until/since the earth completes/has compeleted a revolution. experientially, intervals of time vary person to person, minute to minute. while you're watching time ticking away on a clock, there are many 'times' that are actually passing. that clock gives people a standard/frame of reference to compare experiential time. this standard time could be based on any cycle really, as long as the cycle is constant and a constant interval is used to divide the cycle. unlike the globally accepted standard time, experiential time seems to have variable intervals. as everyones most likely experienced at some point in there lives, there are times when a minute can seem like hours and others where hours can seem like minutes. it seems to me that this shows that our experiential times is dependent on something internal. it could be some internal cycle like heartrate or perhaps its dependent instead on the seemingly variable rate of thought. now in general, like someone has said, time is another form of measurement. its considered the 4th dimension, but i dont know that id group it in with spatial dimensions. it seems to be completely independent of the spatial dimensions while they themselves seem fairly interchangeable. who knows, maybe experiential time is based on something internal like heartrate or metabolism.
and, by the way, movement is required for all known forms of life. whether you're aware of it or not there are cells moving around in your body at any given time and the same is the case for all living things that we know of (plants included). also, keep in mind i never said movement required life, but rather that life requires movement.
|
Spokesman
The HighPhilosopher
Registered: 08/05/03
Posts: 847
Loc: New Jersey U.S.
Last seen: 19 years, 9 months
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Seuss]
#2018440 - 10/17/03 04:38 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
> Plant life doesent need any movement.
Say again? Plant life requires photons to produce energy through photosynthesis. Plant life requires intake of nutrients and water from the soil. Plant life requires carbon dioxide which is taken from the air. Dip a living plant in plastic so that it can no longer 'move' and see how long it lives.
Hmm.. didn't think about it that way, i stand corrected. 
--------------------
|
Alan Stone
Corpus
Registered: 11/23/02
Posts: 986
Loc: Ten feet up
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: trendal]
#2023141 - 10/19/03 04:35 PM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
moogle said:
I've been entertaining the thought, for a while, that time is simply an abstract inverse to change. That is, if we supposed we lived in an unchanging universe, could we say that time passed within it? The only way to verify that time exists, is to observe stuff happening.
And change itself can be brought down to movement. If there were no collision of atoms, there couldn't be a reaction. We wouldn't be able to tell day from night or the time of day if we didn't see the sun and moon moving. Heck, there would be no day and night without movement.
Quote:
moogle said:
So, to articulate the question perhaps a little more clearly, is there really some universal clock ticking [or infinitely many relative clocks, if we invoke special relativity], or are we, as humans, simply attempting to relate magnitudes of change against one another? When you're watching a clock ticking, are you watching 'time' pass by, or are you simply watching a hand move around in a circle?
What's more, if you watch the earth from space, is it every time of day or a single one? Right, so a possible answer to my question would be:
"Hey man, like, the time of day is ahm... ahm.. a concensus, dude!".
Sure, but if the time of day is a concensus, can't time itself be an imagination we created to be able to communicate our thoughts, to be able to structure the world we see?
Applied to space, think about the following example. Imagine a vehicle travelling West at a speed of 1666 km/h along the equator. To the pilot, it would seem like he's moving, while in reality, viewed from space, the vehicle is standing still with the earth moving underneath. This goes to show seeing movement does not necessarily imply movement taking place. Optical illusions will teach you this simple lesson too.
--------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Maya, space-time and scepticism. [Re: Alan Stone]
#2025269 - 10/20/03 11:19 AM (20 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alan Stone said:
What's more, if you watch the earth from space, is it every time of day or a single one? Right, so a possible answer to my question would be:
"Hey man, like, the time of day is ahm... ahm.. a concensus, dude!".
Sure, but if the time of day is a concensus, can't time itself be an imagination we created to be able to communicate our thoughts, to be able to structure the world we see?
of course time was created to add structure to the world we experience. while when the concept was initially created people may have thought that it was invariable throughout the universe (or at least the part they knew of), just as we've realized that the earth revolves around the sun, there has been the realization that the time we know is only truly applicable in a given region on the earth. time is something thats been accepted and the possibility of anything different is generally ignored by most people because the system fulfills its purpose (to assist in predicting when things will happen) and on top of that its fairly accurate. while the units of time that we use are based on the properties of the earth, id bet you could still use them to the same effect elsewhere in the universe. however, time of day and other similar measurements (years, months, hours, etc) would have different meanings elsewhere in space. take the moon, for example, it takes the same amount of time to complete a revolution about its axis as it takes to complete a revolution around the earth. as a result, its days and years are the same length of time, and each are about a month in 'earth time'. my point is that while it is very likely to be an incomplete (or just wholly incorrect) understanding/interpretation of time it works. as far as i can tell, in the case of other understandings/interpretations of time, no ones come up with anything more than theories. at least on earth, the time we know and use daily seems to work out pretty well.
Quote:
Alan Stone said:
Applied to space, think about the following example. Imagine a vehicle travelling West at a speed of 1666 km/h along the equator. To the pilot, it would seem like he's moving, while in reality, viewed from space, the vehicle is standing still with the earth moving underneath. This goes to show seeing movement does not necessarily imply movement taking place. Optical illusions will teach you this simple lesson too.
thats just a matter of frame of reference. its no different from standing on a bus and throwing a ball up and down, while it seems to you that its only moving up and down, to an outside observer the ball is also traveling in whatever direction the bus is headed.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
Alan Stone
gettinjiggywithit
Chronic7
AlteredAgain
raytrace
mr crisper
Swami