Cadmus Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 So would you say that objects and space-time are not separate? Like say frequency is not separate from wavelength when we think about waves? Precisely. Objects are not located "in" space that is a distinct entity. Objects are space-time. The universe that we now recognize is composed of space-time, some units of which are large enough that we recognize them as objects.
Mart Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 Precisely. Objects are not located "in" space that is a distinct entity. Objects are space-time. The universe that we now recognize is composed of space-time, some units of which are large enough that we recognize them as objects. So we are objects of space-time. But unlike rocks and stones we have consciousness. Does this mean that space-time has consciousness?
Cadmus Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 So we are objects of space-time. But unlike rocks and stones we have consciousness. Does this mean that space-time has consciousness? Yes, in my opinion. The entire universe is a consciousness, in my opinion. Our species, unlike rocks, is able to tap into the universal consciousness to some degree, a few dimensions worth. In other words, I consider consciousness to be the interaction of the space-time within the universe.
mmalluck Posted January 31, 2005 Posted January 31, 2005 TIME is always in motion !Positive Motion Or is it that we can only experience time in positive motion? Lets say for an instance that the travel of time is not constant and not always forwards. If time were to suddenly start traveling backwards, there would be no way our physical being could observe it. We need the cause and effect correlation to form memories or make observations. Would we have any perceivable way to observe it's deviation? No, not as long as we are subject to it. It's an interesting idea.
Cadmus Posted January 31, 2005 Posted January 31, 2005 Or is it that we can only experience time in positive motion? Lets say for an instance that the travel of time is not constant and not always forwards. If time were to suddenly start traveling backwards' date=' there would be no way our physical being could observe it. We need the cause and effect correlation to form memories or make observations. Would we have any perceivable way to observe it's deviation? No, not as long as we are subject to it. It's an interesting idea.[/quote'] I think that it is a very interesting idea. Now, what can you do for us with it?
mmalluck Posted January 31, 2005 Posted January 31, 2005 Not too much unless there's a method for testing this hypothesis, otherwise I fear it's about as useful as creationism, just an idea. You would need to be able to step outside of our time reference to see if comparitive time flowed differently. Not exactly an easy task. I'd like to somehow throw time dailation into the mix as a way to change our reference, but distance and travel are dependant on time, so that can not be a truely independant time reference.
Cadmus Posted January 31, 2005 Posted January 31, 2005 Not too much unless there's a method for testing this hypothesis' date=' otherwise I fear it's about as useful as creationism, just an idea. You would need to be able to step outside of our time reference to see if comparitive time flowed differently. Not exactly an easy task. I'd like to somehow throw time dailation into the mix as a way to change our reference, but distance and travel are dependant on time, so that can not be a truely independant time reference.[/quote'] I personally do not agree with your notion that time does not travel only forward. That is just me, of course. However, I quite agree that time does not flow at a constant speed forward. I think that this is perhaps much easier to demonstrate. If you accept the notion that the speed of light is constant in space-time, then you can perhaps come to accept that the speed of time is not constant. Are you familiar with the twin paradox? If one of a pair of twins board a space ship and runs around at a speed apporaching the Newtonian speed of light for a few years, then when he returns to earth he will discover himself to be biologically younger than the twin that never left. In other words, the speed of time was not equal for the twins.
Sayonara Posted January 31, 2005 Posted January 31, 2005 Yes, in my opinion. The entire universe is a consciousness, in my opinion. Our species, unlike rocks, is able to tap into the universal consciousness to some degree, a few dimensions worth. What do you suppose it is that allows this ability, which we have and rocks don't?
Cadmus Posted January 31, 2005 Posted January 31, 2005 What do you suppose it is that allows this ability, which we have and rocks don't? A brain and a nervous system. Evolution takes on many forms. Not all forms tend toward the same goal. Our species has evolved to the ability to have some awareness of the consciousness of the universe. Rocks are also highly evolved.
Sayonara Posted January 31, 2005 Posted January 31, 2005 A brain and a nervous system. And any animal with a brain and nervous system has this ability?
Cadmus Posted January 31, 2005 Posted January 31, 2005 And any animal with a brain and nervous system has this ability? Correct, but not necessarily to the same degree.
yummifruitbat Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Flame me for my sacrilege if you must, but... erm - to me the universe is by definition everything. Not just everything we can see/detect/calculate-the-probability-of-the-existence-as-we-perceive-it-of; everything that 'is', anywhere. So to ask about multiple universes one must have a different definition of universe - 'multiple universes' would all have to exist somewhere and thus would simply be elements of the actual universe... ie. not universes at all.
Sayonara Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 The definition really ought to be "everything that we can access".
saboo Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 I think that time travel to the past is impossible. I agree with the Rebel on that one. However, time travel into the future is a completely different matter. In the future, the deck of cards has already fallen, so you can not affect the present. itz possible since you can squeeze space with time.
saboo Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Time is always in motion, forward. time is always in motion but not necessarly in the forwward direction
ydoaPs Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 The definition really ought to be "everything that we can access". so, if you are sealed in a prison, the universe consists of one building?
saboo Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 I personally do not agree with your notion that time does not travel only forward. That is just me' date=' of course. However, I quite agree that time does not flow at a constant speed forward. I think that this is perhaps much easier to demonstrate. If you accept the notion that the speed of light is constant in space-time, then you can perhaps come to accept that the speed of time is not constant. Are you familiar with the twin paradox? If one of a pair of twins board a space ship and runs around at a speed apporaching the Newtonian speed of light for a few years, then when he returns to earth he will discover himself to be biologically younger than the twin that never left. In other words, the speed of time was not equal for the twins.[/quote'] take light-time constant with moving space (forward-backward) and you can imagine if you travel thru the past
Thales Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 If by moving time, you are implying that times actual consantcy changes, slows down or speeds up, I believe it to be entirely possible (obviously on a longer timescale than a conscious being might ever be able to register). It would have intersting impact on end of the universe 'heat death' scenarios.
Sayonara Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 so, if you are sealed in a prison, the universe consists of one building? You != we, and mobility != accessibility.
Cadmus Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 time is always in motion but not necessarly in the forwward direction Please provide an example of how time could be in motion in a direction other than forward.
Cadmus Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 take light-time constant with moving space (forward-backward) and you can imagine if you travel thru the past Please rephrase this, as I can't understand your point.
yummifruitbat Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 The definition really ought to be "everything that we can access". Why? Does the fact that we are incapable of accessing something prevent its existence? (I'd really prefer not to get dragged into a debate on the nature of existence!)
Mart Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Does the fact that we are incapable of accessing something prevent its existence? (I'd really prefer not to get dragged into a debate on the nature of existence!) Isn't that's like saying "can you show me how to do this Maths problem but please don't use any Maths"? Don't be tempted by the slippery slope.
Sayonara Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Why? Does the fact that we are incapable of accessing something prevent its existence? (I'd really prefer not to get dragged into a debate on the nature of existence!) We had a discussion a while ago where most people agreed that if "it can't interact with anything in our universe, there's no point considering it a part of our universe". Goodness only knows which thread it was in.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now