Yeah you make sense
But here I am having some difficulties in understanding your point of view and I would appreciate your explanation:

Quote:

i believe in this idea because it tends to explain what separates ME from YOU. We are on different time lines. You are only reading this in the dimensions I exist in and only so far as my timeline has allowed me to write this....

---

Quote:

go back into the past, and at some point I was not created because of two possible outcomes.

---

Again
Is that "point" a point in time or a point in your thoughts?
And there just two possibilities?
What if you wrote something else then you did now? Wouldn't that be a third possible outcome? Or what if you deleted this post after you wrote it? That would be the fourth. And so on . I think that there an infinity of possible outcomes, some very different from each other some very similar... just like the points from the area of a circle. Could the outside the circle points be taken to account and considered as possible outcomes? 
Now I hope I'm making some sense

kake said:

Oh okay.  I guess my whole point is that I think if we rely only on what is absolute and obvious, we won't advance our ways of thinking... we need to think outside the box and consider other very BIG possibilities to try and explain the weirdness that is life in space-time.

---

Quote:

By this, do you see time as existing independently from us?

---

Quote:

Again
Is that "point" a point in time or a point in your thoughts?
And there just two possibilities?

---

  Sorry I meant two or more.  There are not points in my thoughts necessarily.  In other words, go back far enough (perhaps seconds before I was conceived or perhaps hundreds of years, depending on how much chaos exists and how often it affects us here on Earth) and there was another dinension that branched out where I wasn't conceived. 


You're making sense, and I'm glad you seem to understand a bit of the idea I'm posing

kake said:

New-age?  I thought that was a music genre!

---

You know... that quote from "vanilla sky"?... "they laughed at Jules Verne, too"

Not to mention that since this is being posted in a philosophy forum all the aspects can be taken to account, and needless to say that this view on time is psychological not that music genre that Trendal mentioned

trendal said:

trendal said:

We'll have to agree to disagree then, because to me time is a dimension and like any other dimension it exists both before and after "now". Where is the past you ask? Well, it's in the past! It happened a second, minute, hour, or year ago and that's where it is.

If you cannot see time as a dimension...then our discussion should end here, because I do.

---

---

trendal said:

The past depends on the future as much as the future does on the past.

In order to change the future, you must be able to change the past.

---

Quote:

Where did I ever say that I wanted to have a discussion of anything but time as a dimension in the physical sense? I stated, quite clearly, several times that I was approaching time from a physical sciences approach.

---

Quote:

Though there are no formal or definitive boundaries for membership, those who are likely to sample many diverse teachings and practices (from both 'mainstream' and 'fringe' traditions) and to formulate their own beliefs and practices based on their experiences can be considered as New Age. Rather than following the lead of an organised religion, "New Agers" typically construct their own spiritual journey based on material taken as needed from the mystical traditions of the world's religions, also including shamanism, neopaganism and occultism.

New Age practices and beliefs may be characterized as a form of alternative spirituality or alternative religion. Even apparent exceptions, such as alternative medicine or traditional medicine practices, often have some spiritual dimension — such as a conceptual integration of mind, body, and spirit.

The term New Age is used in a Western or modern context where the Judeo-Christian tradition and/or Positivism are dominant, so the use of "alternative" in New Age thought generally implies a contrast with these dominant religious and/or scientific beliefs. Hence, many New Age ideas and practices in the West contain either explicit or implied critiques of organised mainstream Christianity—emphasis on meditation suggests that simple prayer and faith is insufficient, and beliefs such as reincarnation (which not all New Age followers accept) challenge familiar Christian doctrines, like those regarding the Afterlife.

---

Quote:

Psychotherapists employ a range of techniques to influence or pursuade the client to adapt or change in the direction the client has chosen. These can be based on clear thinking about their options; experiential relationship building; dialogue, communication and adoption of behavior change strategies. Each is designed to improve the mental health of a client or patient, or to improve group relationships (such as in a family). Most forms of psychotherapy use only spoken conversation, though some also use various other forms of communication such as the written word, artwork, drama, narrative story, or therapeutic touch

---

Well that's kind of what I wanted to emphasize

MushroomTrip said:

I think some other people need to read in which forum they post. If you decided to make that thread in a philosophy form, which apparently you did, the subject is open to a philosophical debate. With pros and cons.
If you wanted only a psychical point of view why didn't you post in science forum?

---

I don't see anything wrong with bringing Science to Philosophy. The so-called philosophers in this forum would do well to include some factual science in their discussions. As far as the "cosmic" definition of things, it seems that just about everyone BUT Trendal is obsessed with some psychedelic self-revelation they had once on drugs about the nature of time. Whereas Trendal is talking about actual scientific theories and principles.

Quote:

I don't see anything wrong with bringing Science to Philosophy. The so-called philosophers in this forum would do well to include some factual science in their discussions. As far as the "cosmic" definition of things, it seems that just about everyone BUT Trendal is obsessed with some psychedelic self-revelation they had once on drugs about the nature of time. Whereas Trendal is talking about actual scientific theories and principles.

---

I don't see anything wrong wither only up to the point where the original poster clearly specified that he only wishes for a discussion which involves modern physics notions. That particular remark leads one to the thought that this thread would of been better off in a science forum
Since it is a philosophy forum, all points of view are welcome and I think that I came with enough evidence to sustain that my points of view and not new age fluff. That if you don't consider psychological matters being so, but then you didn't really come with any facts to sustain that. So I'm kindly asking you that if you have such evidence enlighten us all.

MushroomTrip said:

Quote:

I don't see anything wrong with bringing Science to Philosophy. The so-called philosophers in this forum would do well to include some factual science in their discussions. As far as the "cosmic" definition of things, it seems that just about everyone BUT Trendal is obsessed with some psychedelic self-revelation they had once on drugs about the nature of time. Whereas Trendal is talking about actual scientific theories and principles.

---

That if you don't consider psychological matters being so, but then you didn't really come with any facts to sustain that. So I'm kindly asking you that if you have such evidence enlighten us all.

---