I'm reading some wikipedia articles based on time and find them interesting. So I'm going to put the links and some quotes for the thoughts that i believe in and you can comment or disregard article one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Time_as_.22unreal.22 that kind of lead me to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) which lead me here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series which basically states (in the best example) that: going further on the 'b-series of time' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-Theory_of_time i found this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological which concerns itself with the 'nature and scope' of knowledge and at one point mentions the following: ------------- personal remarks ------------- I haven't read all these articles yet just snippets here and there of the information given. I believe that 'now' is all we have -- this is due to studying eastern religions and western mysticism for the past few years (which I can expand upon) and finding a connection with them. We are not leaving anything (the past) and we are not going towards anything (the future). The moment is what we have and our perception of that moment can be either 'fast' or 'slow' depending on what is going on. Our limited knowledge of the future is what sets it apart from how we feel about the past and our consistently changing moment is what makes time seem different from 'then' to 'now'. Just geekin' out on you guys a little. So; is all we see or seem but a dream within a dream?
time is the 4th axis........................ a series of x-y-z planes stacked on top of one another...........
if the past doesn't exist then you would have no way to compare it to now, therefore you would see no difference. if there is no future, i.e. no movement forward as you put it, then there would also be no basis for comparison.
I didn't say the past is non existent. I just said that our knowledge is different when it comes to the past, present and future. obviously we know more about the past than we do the present or the future.
I disagree. I think we know more about the present, than the past or future. Obviously we nothing of the future with any certainty, save for one thing, we're all going to die. The past though is clouded by the imperfections of memory, which alters what we know about it, yet it doesn't actually change what happened.
we do know the present. those that are fortunate enough to open their eyes to the moment and not the past or future. what i mean by this is if you corrode your mind with regret of the past or worry of the future you can miss the moments that are happening in front of your eyes thus robbing you of the present.
I haven't read all these articles yet just snippets here and there of the information given. I believe that 'now' is all we have -- this is due to studying eastern religions and western mysticism for the past few years (which I can expand upon) and finding a connection with them. We are not leaving anything (the past) and we are not going towards anything (the future). The moment is what we have and our perception of that moment can be either 'fast' or 'slow' depending on what is going on. Our limited knowledge of the future is what sets it apart from how we feel about the past and our consistently changing moment is what makes time seem different from 'then' to 'now'. Just geekin' out on you guys a little. So; is all we see or seem but a dream within a dream?[/QUOTE] You can't really live in the past or in the future, so all you truly have is the now. I get it, you get it and Ricky Williams gets it along with countless others.
if you say we are leaving nothing and going towards nothing, that to me would imply it is non existant................................... If you are trying to say the events that take place are of no consequence then you are still leaving something and going towards somethings, you just have trivialized the importance of that something.
you're big on me trivializing things aren't you? when or where did i say that events that take place are of no consequence? when did i say we were leaving nothing and going towards nothing? i said we know more about the past than we do the present or the future how does that imply that they are trivial or non existent? in short.. what in the hell are you talking about?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d9pg5ZcVS8&feature=PlayList&p=F9367E674EECB1B4&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=40"]YouTube - Hootie and the Blowfish Time[/ame]
i fail to understand how that way of thinking means i trivialize events taken. the only thing i was trying to say with those comments posted there is that the moment doesn't change not that there hasn't been a past. but we aren't leaving the moment when the past goes by just that the moment leaves.
yeah i think that came off more dick then i meant it to be. anlgp was tripping balls and didnt realize he said that I guess or didn't mean it as such
I understood it to mean that you try to minimize the impact of the past events and live for the here and now. Thats all. Trivializing something is about perception, which is what most of human existence is about, perception, which is why I'm big on it..... It does not mean it is a bad thing to do necessarily: triv·i·al (trv-l) adj. 1. Of little significance or value. It just means you don't let it have a huge impact.
