an interesting philosophy on time
closed account (zwA4jE8b)
http://postimage.org/image/be1an5c4/
http://postimage.org/image/be2y6htw/
What do you think?
http://postimage.org/image/be2y6htw/
What do you think?
Last edited on
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
Once upon a time I did two hits of blotter at a laundromat while doing my wash. While walking home I figured it all out--it was so important I wrote it down because I wanted to be able to remember this thought again when I was straight.
The next day then I found my note in my pocket this is what it said:
There are only two types of people in the world--those that are tripping and those that are not.
The next day then I found my note in my pocket this is what it said:
There are only two types of people in the world--those that are tripping and those that are not.
Time is intangible / imaginary. We recognize and measure it only because it provides a way to recognize and measure tangible / real / physical things. Speculating as to whether or not we are in the past or the future is somewhat pointless because there is only the present.
Time is a measuring scale. Nothing more. It doesn't really exist. To say that time exists is akin to saying something like an inch exists.
Time is a measuring scale. Nothing more. It doesn't really exist. To say that time exists is akin to saying something like an inch exists.
CreativeMFS: It seems to me like on page 1 you're taking time, and propagation and processing of signals, and muddling them into something incoherent.
It's true that since we don't operate at infinite speed, everything we perceive is in the past; however, because we only have our perception to go by, making the distinction isn't very useful.
Where #2 came from, I don't know.
#3 seems like a bastardization of the physical concept of light cone.
Page 2 makes no sense to me, particularly everything after "At the speed of light, time has not..."
Disch:
Haven't you ever heard of eternalism?
I can't follow this reasoning. If you had said "time is a convenient abstraction to keep track of the way things progress", that would have made sense and fitted with the rest of the post. Like this, it's just a string of gibberish.
It's true that since we don't operate at infinite speed, everything we perceive is in the past; however, because we only have our perception to go by, making the distinction isn't very useful.
Where #2 came from, I don't know.
#3 seems like a bastardization of the physical concept of light cone.
Page 2 makes no sense to me, particularly everything after "At the speed of light, time has not..."
Disch:
| Speculating as to whether or not we are in the past or the future is somewhat pointless because there is only the present. |
| Time is a measuring scale. Nothing more. It doesn't really exist. To say that time exists is akin to saying something like an inch exists. |
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| Haven't you ever heard of eternalism? |
I don't subscribe to it.
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| Like this, it's just a string of gibberish. |
Haw.
Well I'm not always as articulate as I'd like to be. I think I got my overall stance illustrated well enough even if parts of it came across as gibberish.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.