Iggy

nowhere. You already lost me. If I defined "move" I would maybe say "a change of position over time" or, perhaps better put "a change of position between two times". That definition, however, doesn't work if you say "moving through time". With my definition of "move", if you say "moving through time" you are literally saying "a change of position between two times through time". I can't make any sense of that so I don't know what "move through time" means. This does all seem rather off topic.

Well, you said that. I was working off your premise, but it's a good premise. I agree. Your car keys are the same yesterday as today... same keys. Ok. Now you have the same car keys on the kitchen table and the coffee table at the same time. In my everyday experience, that doesn't happen.

In medicine it is also worth mentioning that trials need randomized and controlled comparisons before they can be clinical practice. So, even if a trial chose 10 or 50 women to deliver by caesarian section with hypnosis and no other local or general anesthetic in a well-documented clinical setting and it was a complete success (it was as successful as the current standard of care) that would not be enough for the society to advance the procedure. Unless it's randomized and blind, for example, you wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility that the 10 or 50 women were chosen because they are extremely susceptible to hypnosis. So, even if it weren't a youtube video -- if it were a real scientific paper reporting that the procedure worked -- that still would have to be rejected as anecdotal in the literature until someone did a proper study. Also... we have drugs now that put people into a hypnotic state. They are called hypnotics. That's what they use for general anesthesia and conscious sedation, and the drugs are extremely safe. I can't wrap my mind around someone going to 4 months of hypnosis sessions in the hope that it might do what we all know an IV will safely do in 10 seconds.

If there are two dimensions of time... you could be both You actually asked 3 questions: Is object A at 1,1,1,1? The answer is yes. You said it was. Is object A at 1,1,1,2? The answer is yes. You said it was. Is object A at 1,1,1,1 and 1,1,1,2. The answer is yes. See the above two answers.

You actually explained it fantastically well, and I agree -- if you want to say "today the clock is gone yesterday" then you NEED two dimensions of time. It doesn't otherwise make sense. What you started to do was to take an object and represent its movement in the universe with a tabletop (the tabletop being a space time diagram). That's a fantastic idea. What I could then do is to take your "ball rolling on the tabletop" and diagram it myself. It would require three dimensions: one of space and two of time. You've ended up with two different time dimensions, but... why? I only know of the one. EDIT: Again, you've described it perfectly. You want to say "first the object is at 1,1,1,1 then it is at 1,1,1,2" so you obviously need another number: 1,1,1,1,1... 2,1,1,1,2" which means "first and second" in this case. You've ended up with 5 numbers... that's three dimensions of space and two of time.

But who watches the watchmen? So, the vertical dimension represents time. Got it. So, the movement of the ball represents time. Got it. Oh, wait... you've ended up with two dimensions of time. That's probably not going to fly.

I highlighted several words above. They mean different things. I don't know what "we" means. An event is, by definition, a specific place at a certain time. Neil Armstrong setting foot on the moon is an event. No one would think that an event moves with respect to time. That would be nonsensical. An object is not so easily defined. A clock is a good idea of an object. It is different today than it was yesterday. It changes with time or "over" time. Specifically, certain parts of the object move with respect to other parts over time. Human perception is like an object... it is, after all, the workings of the human body and brain. Logically then, does an object move through time so that if an object is here today then it must be gone yesterday? No. Today the clock is here today and yesterday the clock was here yesterday. That's the end of the story. You don't get to say "today the clock is gone yesterday" because that is a nonsensical thing to say.

Yeah... I am really drawn to the idea that you're consciously stimulating your sympathetic nervous system. I'm not a medical expert, so you should probably just take what I'm saying as a suggested area of research or the like. The sympathetic nervous system (SNS.. it's ridiculous to type) is the "something-is-about-to-happen" nervous system. It is the reason some people blush when they lie, the reason your hair stands on end when something doesn't feel right, the reason people in an emergency or a disaster often recount it by saying "I felt like I was outside my body watching things... like I was watching a movie". As complicated as the SNS is, it is a very evolutionarily fundamental system. It regulates our "fight-or-flight-or-freeze" response. It regulates the opossum's tendency to become completely dissociated (or "feign death" as they say) when in danger... it regulates the chameleon's tendency to change color when it senses a predator nearby, and regulates our human responses to danger and trauma (physiologically based psychology if ever there were a perfect example). So... that was probably the worst description of the SNS ever -- nonetheless, if you are willfully tapping into it then what is physiologically happening?... Your brain sends a message to a ganglion at the base of your neck. From there, messages get sent to the rest of your body where its systems are told to start acting very different. Blood vessels near the skin constrict and deeper ones dilate -- blood pressure goes up -- adrenaline levels increase (as do other hormones and neurotransmitters which can have profound psychological effects) -- the digestive tract stops working, sugar is liberated as an energy source, your instinctive reflexes can become more pronounced as the spine stops waiting for the brain to tell it what to do and starts reacting to stimulus on its own. What exactly happens, and how it feels, depends on your genetics and what specific situation you're in. If you are suddenly trapped -- perhaps your boss catches you in a lie and confronts you -- your SNS reacts. You could panic... you could become dissociated... everybody's different. But, you could perhaps imagine how it would physically feel. You would feel things in your gut, on your skin, with your heart... etc. Suddenly being frightened -- you might feel a jolt of energy which might be intense enough to make you physically flinch. If the threat is real I can say from experience that very noticeable physical things are felt in the body. Kissing someone for the first time (or similar activities ) is a dulled down example of the same system. You could blush, skin could tingle, heart start to race, butterflies in the stomach... it really depends on the person but there should be physically noticeable things. The poker table is absolutely a recipe for SNS overdrive. I've seen the hands of the most professional poker players shake. It is a primary evolutionary response and it is very hard to control. You say it feels pleasurable and that is understandable. People go bungee jumping and base jumping for the pleasure of it. So... if you recognize what I mean by all that rambling and you identify it as something very similar to the feeling that you are self-inducing then I would strongly suspect you are consciously aggravating your SNS. I do not mean that you should feel fear or excitement when you do it. I mean that fearful or exciting situations might generate feelings that you recognize as very similar to what you are feeling. There could be supporting evidence of my hypothesis. 1) does your hair stand on end or do you get goose bumps anywhere on your body when you do this, or... does your skin change color? That would be very good corroboration. 2) if someone touches your arm when you aren't looking at it you wouldn't normally flinch. But, if you are inducing this state and someone touches your arm, might it jerk as a response? 3) do your pupils visibly dilate when you do this? Those types of things (and other normal SNS responses) would support the idea.

The wick effect explains human combustion. It isn't spontaneous -- I think what usually happens is that people die suddenly or pass out from alcohol or drugs and end up catching themselves on fire (usually with a cigarette, I'd imagine). The wick effect burns the body nearly completely wherever there is enough fat, but the rest of the room doesn't catch on fire. What is left is a burned-up body with no evidence of the source of the fire except for the person themselves. A strange scene to behold -- but, completely reproducible in a lab -- no real mystery.

Tingling like you would get with goosebumps? Jolts like you might feel go up your spine if you are just about to lift something very heavy off the floor? It sounds like you're describing the stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system. Being startled would give, I think, the same kind of symptoms to the average user. Actually, there is probably a lot of interesting psychology and physiology here. Let me ask what might sound weird... How would you compare your experience to a near-death experience or an out of body experience (if you know). How would you compare it to a feeling of awe, or an 'eerie' feeling... or maybe a religious trance-like state if that is something you could relate to. Uhhh... less extreme, let me think... How would you compare it to the goosebumps and the little flutter a person might get in their heart or belly with a first kiss? Without explaining why, I'm curious if any of that strikes a chord with what you feel.

Yes, I couldn't agree more. Literally. Presentism is so vague... So what? Abraham Lincoln doesn't exist in the present. Fine. I think relativity can live with that. I am positive of only 2 things. 1) you didn't follow what I meant. 2) I have no idea what you mean. "Eternal" is a very long time. "Present" is a very short time (you can see the first paragraph of the latest link given by md65536 in this thread to see why this is necessarily true). So, putting "eternal" and "present" together would seem to be nonsensical. It's like "dry rain" or "dense vacuum". I would need specifics to understand -- not generalizations. That is why I asked if all events are simultaneous in the "eternal present". That question, if you could answer it, might explain better what you mean.

Are all events simultaneous in an "eternal present"? If so, it isn't an eternity. If not, it isn't a present. Either way, I can't personally make sense of "eternal present".

Some would question my fitness as the benchmark for sanity It might be better to say "event" like you did yesterday. "Events outside our past light cone we cannot see". While we don't generally see events inside our past light cone, it isn't an impossibility. Light could, for example, pass through a medium with a high refractive index (slowing the light) between the event and the observer. Events outside are unobservable. Literature to that effect... well, there's wikipedia:

I believe that to be true by definition, absolutely.

I think you're exactly correct. Philosophers would call the extended present which we experience the "specious present". Perhaps you're aware of the term and the literature. Here is an example from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: So, I agree with you and I think most philosophers would. We don't have an experience of an objective durationless present, but rather a specious present that is extended in time.

That is my understanding as well. Everything that we see happened some time in the past because it takes light time to get from there to here. Like you say, we would just now observe an event that happened 10 years ago and is 10 light-years away. The scientific name for the set of events extending into the past which we currently see is our "past light cone".

Agreed that the bases are never multiples of 100. But, (it might be worth pointing out) that they are multiples of 1,000 in some countries and multiples of 1,000,000 in others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales

You are the swish of a silk sari on a summer night, and other things described here: I will put in the box the swish of a silk sari on a summer night, fire from the nostrils of a Chinese dragon, the tip of a tongue touching a tooth. I will put in the box a snowman with a rumbling belly, a sip of the bluest water from Lake Lucerne, a leaping spark from an electric fish. I will put into the box three violet wishes spoken in Gujarati, the last joke of an ancient uncle, and the first smile of a baby. I will put into the box a fifth season and a black sun, a cowboy on a broomstick and a witch on a white horse. My box is fashioned from ice and gold and steel, with stars on the lid and secrets in the corners. Its hinges are the toe joints of dinosaurs. I shall surf in my box on the great high-rolling breakers of the wild Atlantic, then wash ashore on a yellow beach the color of the sun. ~Kit Wright

+1 NAMBLA passes it out I can think of a difference between 'sex with kids' and 'religious brainwashing' that may put them on different playing fields. Sex with a child is never ok. It's never healthy for the kid. Religion, on the other hand, isn't always harmful. I say this even though I really dislike the religious brainwashing of children.

Will do. Thank you I apologize for asking where your brain was as a response to this claim. Reading hundreds of unsupported claims in this thread brought out a negative emotion which I should have filtered when composing my reply. If the thread isn't closed due to rehashing the same answers to the OP unremittingly, or you are not somehow prevented from making unsupported claims, I will continue explaining why the assertions are wrong without insult. You can see specifically why this unsupported claim is wrong in my last post (#304).

Thank you. The link says... that reason makes a lot more sense to me than the one you give here... I can understand why you want there to be a correlation between Norway's liberal justice system and their standard of living, but it is a very large leap between the two.

Both. You're comparing apples and oranges. The optionsgiven aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed Like you just said, that isn't the problem at hand. It's too late. Depends on what problem you're talking about. "the best place to live" according to who? A devout sheite muslim would hardly consider it the best place to live. It's subjective.

yes

It measures time. A more detailed description of 'what' is being measured is getting in to metaphysics -- which is fine, but not something necessary for science or something I'm wanting to get in to. Instead of using "what" in the definition, we could use 'variable' or 'quantity'. Time is the variable measured by a clock. The best analogy is that "distance is that which a ruler measures". While a clock doesn't measure motion -- motion is necessary for the working of a clock. This is no different from distance. A ruler doesn't measure motion, but motion (usually the motion of light) is necessary to measure distance. Without motion you can't measure distance or time, but this doesn't mean motion=time or motion=distance (which is something I mention only because so many people think along those lines). No, absolutely not. It can differ. Time's rate depends on velocity, not location. Two clocks which share a location but have different velocities will disagree on rate. That explains why scientists use accurate clocks and automated systems to record their measurements--so that the passage of time in an experiment will not be susceptible to variations in perception. I would guess that some physical states, like color, rely on perception at least as much as time. correct Is your brain present at all while you're typing posts? Even if I dumb down what I'm saying to an absurd level (going as far as drawing pictures of the idea) -- you still fail to get it. It's like you're trying to misunderstand. The definition of a word means the same thing as the word itself. The word and the definition have the same meaning. Ok? Don't just skim over the above two sentences looking for something to which you can respond. Read them to understand them. Once you understand it, you should understand "time = X" is a tautology. X means the exact same thing as "time". You said something then you repeated the exact same concept. Read the first sentence of Tautology (rhetoric) -- wikipedia. In particular, find these words: "using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing" then compare that idea to the idea of a definition -- the idea of using different and dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing. Can you guess what those two exactly similar things have in common? No, this thread speaks to your nonsensical notions. My point was that some people just now arriving may not know that your conclusions are pseudoscientific and illogical. Specifically, they may not know that you keep accusing the scientific definition of time of being tautological even though it has been repeatedly pointed out that the same could be said for any definition. This problem comes up because you speak as if you have some kind of background in science and/or philosophy, but you don't. Your experience with ontology is limited to a single article which you can't help but mischaracterize. Your experience and background are in spirituality and 'gnosis', yet you talk about time dilation and relativity in an authoritative tone. You say ridiculous things like "I have studied spacetime extensively". Nothing could be further from the truth, but a person would need to spend 2 or 3 posts talking to you in order to realize that. I was queuing people in on that fact.

ALL definitions are tautologies. It does not diminish "time" (or its definition) to speak of it in that way. I've repeated this 4 or 5 times and you've ignored it every time only to keep repeating the nonsense as if it still made sense. Maybe you don't understand, or maybe your bias forces you to disregard a point so counter to your own. Either way, I've drawn a picture showing this so that you hopefully won't be able to ignore it. The definition of time is a tautology like I show here: Any other definition is a tautology an example of which I demonstrate here: Indeed, the scientific definition of time (that which a clock measures) is a tautology. It is also circular. If it were not these two things then it would not be a proper definition. So... your point is meaningless. In case there is anyone reading this thread who is taking you seriously, they should know that your unsupported declarations have been shown to be nonsense around a half-dozen times.