//Please comment.
boo
//Thank you for the subject and sharing all these thoughts.
Thanks
//With all due respect should I consider publishing?
What kind of book or article is it?
//I'm 18 and you witnessed my second post.
Shame on you, the waisted years you've had, I think you better get your thinking cap on and post some more to make up for it
//Thank you.
No sir... Thank you I insist ( we may be here a while)
This is more close to poetry rather than an actual argument. I don't clearly see what your argument is...
But it doesn't always have to be an argument.
I sometimes feel the forums of the internet are chock full of arguments and debates. But... it is unavoidable, especially with the subject matter
So, someone convince me that this isn't a senseless proposition. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I seriously don't understand what the question is asking.
It might seem like an easy answer (almost as easy as praying to a god) but its all relative. I say more further down in my spiel.
But doesn't it seem like memory is a necessary condition for our perception of time? If we had no memory, and simply lived in the "specious present" would we have a need at all for time? Think carefully about this one.
Never thought of this. I agree with you and asherlee that memory plays a big part in how we see time. Im pretty sure that, even with no memory, I would still know there were things Iv done, and things I may do. Other than that this will cause me to think on this because there are things in world, living things, that probably have no memory and dont really care about time, just a singular purpose to split, procreate, eat etc.
The difference is between rulers and clocks is that clocks do not actually "measure" time
A ruler only measures the space that we find useful... as does a temperature gauge. Volume is also different from distance. Volume depends on the state of what we know. distance depends on nothing. How long is a piece of string. To a mouse one inch of string is far bigger so perhaps he (its a boy mouse) will measure
his thumb...thing and decide that is an inch, then the giant stands above and she measures her thumb because its what is useful to her. Compare all these different sizes of inch and all three are absolute to each other. They are real, definite and tangible. How big does it go before it stops being relative. How small do you go before physics doesnt work at our level anymore but is very real and litirally MAKES our reality yet... is not our reality. Its not. We dont actually understand it yet. The rules do not act as if they make the rules up here yet they do.
Time is part of that. Im not asking for a perception of time existing.
Linking to your quote above Moe, this Thread is asking about time on a much more fundamental level. I understand we use whats relative for a very good reason. I don't doubt reality, whatever its made of, be it matrix, god or information, its still real and everything still acts around me. If thats not living and being part of perception I don't know what is.
I'm quite sure there's more tho. As I said above about distance being only what we find useful relative to our surroundings and ability to perceive and interact with it. If we find another level of matter below quarks (we may have already, who knows) then whats to say that it does not go down even further. Im sure most people are aware of this concept tbh but it ties in with what we view as a meter, how big a box is and how many molecules of carbon we can fit into a dump truck compared to the amount of water molecules we can fit in a swimming pool.
Is time relative in the same way?
Im kinda tired and sadly cannot fully explain what Im trying to say. Its been a long, long day. week. year.
