Do you experience time when there is no change?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by bahman » Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:19 pm

Sculptor believes that there is no experience of time when there is no change. If it is so then why waiting is so bothersome? Obviously, there should be no waiting if there is no passage of psychological time.

Impenitent
Posts: 2382
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by Impenitent » Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:32 pm

if there is no change in the nursery, you'll experience something else...

-Imp

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4922
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

time is measurable change

Post by henry quirk » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:10 am

I'm still thinkin' on this, but...

"Sculptor believes that there is no experience of time when there is no change. If it is so then why waiting is so bothersome? Obviously, there should be no waiting if there is no passage of psychological time."

Waitin' is bothersome to us cuz we're physical and in constant flux (change). The brain (which seems to be the locus of the individual) is not static. It, the brain, the individual, is constantly processing information. There's an on-going, coherent electrical storm between his ears all the time.

Thing to remember: we are as much 'in' the universe as that lonely lil radioactive particle I introduced to a vacant universe up-thread (I mean, 'in another thread'). We can measure change, sure, but we can also 'be' measured. Change happens to us therefore time happens to us.
Last edited by henry quirk on Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Age
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by Age » Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:02 am

The answer to topic question is no.
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:19 pm
Sculptor believes that there is no experience of time when there is no change. If it is so then why waiting is so bothersome?
That would be a question that only YOU could answer. So, Why do YOU get bothersome when YOU are 'waiting' for some thing?
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:19 pm
Obviously, there should be no waiting if there is no passage of psychological time.
Is there 'waiting'? Or, is 'waiting' only psychological?

Since you were born, have you been 'waiting', for death?

If no, then why not?

And, what else is it then that you have actually been 'waiting' for exactly?

Also, there is no actual thing as 'time', let alone a 'psychological time'. But there is obviously a constant change occurring ALWAYS.

If there was no change, then there would not be anything to observe, obviously, including any perception of what is known generally as "time", itself.

The name 'time' is just a human being made up label, which is used when referencing between two points in the one constantly changing event called Existence.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: time is measurable change

Post by bahman » Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:52 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:10 am
I'm still thinkin' on this, but...
Cool.
henry quirk wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:10 am
"Sculptor believes that there is no experience of time when there is no change. If it is so then why waiting is so bothersome? Obviously, there should be no waiting if there is no passage of psychological time."

Waitin' is bothersome to us cuz we're physical and in constant flux (change). The brain (which seems to be the locus of the individual) is not static. It, the brain, the individual, is constantly processing information. There's an on-going, coherent electrical storm between his ears all the time.
True. The brain is in constant work. It creates shapes and psychological time. The only time that we don't experience psychological time is when we are under anesthesia.
henry quirk wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:10 am
Thing to remember: we are as much 'in' the universe as that lonely lil radioactive particle I introduced to a vacant universe up-thread (I mean, 'in another thread'). We can measure change, sure, but we can also 'be' measured.
That is how we measure passage of time.
henry quirk wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:10 am
Change happens to us therefore time happens to us.
So you agree with the concept of psychological time?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by bahman » Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:03 am

Age wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:02 am
The answer to topic question is no.
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:19 pm
Sculptor believes that there is no experience of time when there is no change. If it is so then why waiting is so bothersome?
That would be a question that only YOU could answer. So, Why do YOU get bothersome when YOU are 'waiting' for some thing?
Waiting is something real. We know what is short, long waiting is. This means that we experience something that makes waiting meaningful to us. That thing is psychological time. What could be otherwise?
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:02 am
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:19 pm
Obviously, there should be no waiting if there is no passage of psychological time.
Is there 'waiting'?
There is.
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:02 am
Or, is 'waiting' only psychological?
Waiting is referring to the time that we wait that something happens.
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:02 am
Since you were born, have you been 'waiting', for death?

If no, then why not?
Yes. I am waiting for my death.
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:02 am
And, what else is it then that you have actually been 'waiting' for exactly?
Waiting in the doctor office, behind a traffic light, etc.
Age wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:02 am
Also, there is no actual thing as 'time', let alone a 'psychological time'. But there is obviously a constant change occurring ALWAYS.

If there was no change, then there would not be anything to observe, obviously, including any perception of what is known generally as "time", itself.

The name 'time' is just a human being made up label, which is used when referencing between two points in the one constantly changing event called Existence.
Have you ever been in the state of anesthesia? If yes, then you understand what psychological time is.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4930
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:04 pm

bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:19 pm
Sculptor believes that there is no experience of time when there is no change. If it is so then why waiting is so bothersome? Obviously, there should be no waiting if there is no passage of psychological time.
Actually that is a good question I never even thought of...

The answer I would have to give is yes and no.

Yes in the respect if I see something "still", such as a tree, what I am observing is a summation of infinite movements that tree is composed of...that tree is it's own time zone. The same occurs for a sphere, I am observing an infinite set of circles existing through circles. I am observing "infinite" movements as "indefinite" or "no movement"...so yes I am observing "time itself."

The "no" would be where there are multiple "still" images in succession. You are always observing a summation of time in an indefinite state through each image, but the inversion of one image to another image always shows time as being composed of timelessness. Time is an approximation of one form through many forms, but the form in itself is empty. So yes you can experience time in a change less state, but no you are not subject to it.

Impenitent
Posts: 2382
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by Impenitent » Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:18 pm

if there is no time when there is no change, paying the exact amount would prevent aging...

-Imp

Age
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by Age » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:51 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:04 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:19 pm
Sculptor believes that there is no experience of time when there is no change. If it is so then why waiting is so bothersome? Obviously, there should be no waiting if there is no passage of psychological time.
Actually that is a good question I never even thought of...

The answer I would have to give is yes and no.

Yes in the respect if I see something "still", such as a tree, what I am observing is a summation of infinite movements that tree is composed of...that tree is it's own time zone. The same occurs for a sphere, I am observing an infinite set of circles existing through circles. I am observing "infinite" movements as "indefinite" or "no movement"...so yes I am observing "time itself."

The "no" would be where there are multiple "still" images in succession. You are always observing a summation of time in an indefinite state through each image, but the inversion of one image to another image always shows time as being composed of timelessness. Time is an approximation of one form through many forms, but the form in itself is empty. So yes you can experience time in a change less state, but no you are not subject to it.
You can NOT observe no change. If you say you can observe or see "still", then besides the fact that you are not really observing and seeing ALL-THERE-IS, the fact is you just observing and seeing, means there IS change. If you can observe and see there there IS change.

There are NO multiple still images also. There IS, however, a constant continuum of change, which is what is being observed and can be seen.

There is NO such thing as 'time', so 'time' can not be observed. But what is observed and can be seen is change, and it is this change, itself, which is just referenced as 'time'.

What is observed and experienced is change only. So, only when change is experienced, so to is the referential framework commonly called "time' is also.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4930
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:59 pm

Age wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:51 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:04 pm
bahman wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:19 pm
Sculptor believes that there is no experience of time when there is no change. If it is so then why waiting is so bothersome? Obviously, there should be no waiting if there is no passage of psychological time.
Actually that is a good question I never even thought of...

The answer I would have to give is yes and no.

Yes in the respect if I see something "still", such as a tree, what I am observing is a summation of infinite movements that tree is composed of...that tree is it's own time zone. The same occurs for a sphere, I am observing an infinite set of circles existing through circles. I am observing "infinite" movements as "indefinite" or "no movement"...so yes I am observing "time itself."

The "no" would be where there are multiple "still" images in succession. You are always observing a summation of time in an indefinite state through each image, but the inversion of one image to another image always shows time as being composed of timelessness. Time is an approximation of one form through many forms, but the form in itself is empty. So yes you can experience time in a change less state, but no you are not subject to it.
You can NOT observe no change. If you say you can observe or see "still", then besides the fact that you are not really observing and seeing ALL-THERE-IS, the fact is you just observing and seeing, means there IS change. If you can observe and see there there IS change.

There are NO multiple still images also. There IS, however, a constant continuum of change, which is what is being observed and can be seen.

There is NO such thing as 'time', so 'time' can not be observed. But what is observed and can be seen is change, and it is this change, itself, which is just referenced as 'time'.

What is observed and experienced is change only. So, only when change is experienced, so to is the referential framework commonly called "time' is also.
Change is multiple still images, a still image is compose of multiple still images as a context.

Time and movement is a question of context and all contexts are simultaneously one (static (still may not be the right word)) and many.

You can argue for a constant continuum of change, but we observe this one continuum through many continuums. A basic line composed of other lines (or line segments according to the continually changing axioms of math).

Contexts are variables with all contexts as variable being equivocable by nature. The fallacy of equivocation does not exists except as a self contradicting loop in aristotelian identity properties (which are contradictory by nature due to there divisive atomism or emphasis on "manyness" that is the grounding for anaylticism).

Age
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by Age » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:59 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:51 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:04 pm


Actually that is a good question I never even thought of...

The answer I would have to give is yes and no.

Yes in the respect if I see something "still", such as a tree, what I am observing is a summation of infinite movements that tree is composed of...that tree is it's own time zone. The same occurs for a sphere, I am observing an infinite set of circles existing through circles. I am observing "infinite" movements as "indefinite" or "no movement"...so yes I am observing "time itself."

The "no" would be where there are multiple "still" images in succession. You are always observing a summation of time in an indefinite state through each image, but the inversion of one image to another image always shows time as being composed of timelessness. Time is an approximation of one form through many forms, but the form in itself is empty. So yes you can experience time in a change less state, but no you are not subject to it.
You can NOT observe no change. If you say you can observe or see "still", then besides the fact that you are not really observing and seeing ALL-THERE-IS, the fact is you just observing and seeing, means there IS change. If you can observe and see there there IS change.

There are NO multiple still images also. There IS, however, a constant continuum of change, which is what is being observed and can be seen.

There is NO such thing as 'time', so 'time' can not be observed. But what is observed and can be seen is change, and it is this change, itself, which is just referenced as 'time'.

What is observed and experienced is change only. So, only when change is experienced, so to is the referential framework commonly called "time' is also.
Change is multiple still images, a still image is compose of multiple still images as a context.
If that is how it is for you, then so be it. But that is not how it is for I.

I observe constant-changing, and f you observe still images, then that is how it is.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:59 pm
Time and movement is a question of context and all contexts are simultaneously one (static (still may not be the right word)) and many.

You can argue for a constant continuum of change, but we observe this one continuum through many continuums.
Who do you propose is this 'we'?. I do NOT observe what you say 'we' do.

You can speak for 'you' and I can speak for 'I'. But you can not speak for 'we' and be right all the time. And I do not speak for 'we' at any time anyway.

I am just expressing the views I have.

I do not observe many different, separate continuums, like you do. I see One continuum.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:59 pm
A basic line composed of other lines (or line segments according to the continually changing axioms of math).

Contexts are variables with all contexts as variable being equivocable by nature. The fallacy of equivocation does not exists except as a self contradicting loop in aristotelian identity properties (which are contradictory by nature due to there divisive atomism or emphasis on "manyness" that is the grounding for anaylticism).

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4930
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:35 am

Age wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:05 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:59 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:51 pm


You can NOT observe no change. If you say you can observe or see "still", then besides the fact that you are not really observing and seeing ALL-THERE-IS, the fact is you just observing and seeing, means there IS change. If you can observe and see there there IS change.

There are NO multiple still images also. There IS, however, a constant continuum of change, which is what is being observed and can be seen.

There is NO such thing as 'time', so 'time' can not be observed. But what is observed and can be seen is change, and it is this change, itself, which is just referenced as 'time'.

What is observed and experienced is change only. So, only when change is experienced, so to is the referential framework commonly called "time' is also.
Change is multiple still images, a still image is compose of multiple still images as a context.
If that is how it is for you, then so be it. But that is not how it is for I.

I observe constant-changing, and f you observe still images, then that is how it is.

So this "I" you observe is never changing? All the words you wrote always having changing meanings and are never static or one pointed in nature?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:59 pm
Time and movement is a question of context and all contexts are simultaneously one (static (still may not be the right word)) and many.

You can argue for a constant continuum of change, but we observe this one continuum through many continuums.
Who do you propose is this 'we'?. I do NOT observe what you say 'we' do.

Who do you propose is this "I"...it can be still and have one meaning otherwise you contradict yourself .

You can speak for 'you' and I can speak for 'I'. But you can not speak for 'we' and be right all the time. And I do not speak for 'we' at any time anyway.

I am just expressing the views I have.

I do not observe many different, separate continuums, like you do. I see One continuum.

I am so glad you see one continuum and are expressing it through many different continuous sentences....
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:59 pm
A basic line composed of other lines (or line segments according to the continually changing axioms of math).

Contexts are variables with all contexts as variable being equivocable by nature. The fallacy of equivocation does not exists except as a self contradicting loop in aristotelian identity properties (which are contradictory by nature due to there divisive atomism or emphasis on "manyness" that is the grounding for anaylticism).

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:44 am

bahman wrote:
Sculptor believes that there is no experience of time when there is no change
Any motion causes change but it cannot happen without time
Only when there is no motion anywhere can there be no time

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:59 am

Age wrote:
There is NO such thing as time so time can not be observed
But what is observed and can be seen is change and it is this change itself which is just referenced as time
The word change is very general while the word time is more specific and so in that respect it is a better one
Time is simply a specific point or the distance between two or more points within the spectrum of Existence

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Do you experience time when there is no change?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Oct 04, 2019 3:16 am

Everything occurs within the eternal Now which is within the spectrum of Existence
Nothing within the eternal Now is ever truly still because everything within it is in a constant state of motion
A still image may appear so to the very limited human perspective but it is moving just like everything else is

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests