To: K-list
Recieved: 1999/10/31 03:30
Subject: Re: [K-list] Interesting Article on Time
From: Martin Thompson
On 1999/10/31 03:30, Martin Thompson posted thus to the K-list:
01:09:00 Sun, 31 Oct 1999
at PokimontazATnospamaol.com writes:
>We apparently can't sense time with our 5 known-confirmed senses but does
>that lack truly disconfirm its existence? A similar argument for psychic
>abilities is plausible. It's not possible to project such images on a screen
>or through regular testing but does that mean that neither exist?
>
I would say that the problem in a way is the opposite: we do have a
sense of time, a recording of sequences of events in our minds, or some
such mechanism. The problem is that this doesn't seem to accord with
fundamental reality as measured with microscopic detail by physicists.
><<In Platonia, there are no initial conditions>>
>Like the saying goes "Theres a first time for everything." In order for you
>to be in spot B now you had to be at some spot A before hand and later you
>will then migrate to Spot C.
I'm afraid not! It was Einstein, using a non-quantum-mechanical
formulation for his theory of relativity, who showed that events A, B
and C can appear to happen in any order, depending only on the relative
locations and velocities of the observers. Einstein abolished causality
for all observers and events which are close enough together for a
photon to have passed between them during the events in question.
(Interested readers might like to look at Einstein's book, "Relativity"
(the by-line is: The Special and General Theory: A Popular Exposition),
ISBN 0 416 67600 6 published by Methuen, although there is probably a
more recent edition around by now. It is a bit mathematical, but not too
bad as physics books go.)
>We attempt to
>compare, describe, relate all kinds of experiences to others in our lives.
>In order to compare them we ahve to compare them to something..which would be
>the inital point.
>
Yes; it is a serious philosophical problem, I think, given that
experiment proves that our intuitions or conditioning about time is
wrong.
>I don't necessarily believe that time is absolute. Absolute means that there
>is no variation and there is a variation due to the differences in our
>experiences.
That's for sure; sometimes it seems to fly by, other times it drags.
In that context, I think I've just gone and slipped into another
parallel Universe: in my "previous" one, the "Moors Murderer" Ian Brady
(partner of Myra Hindley) killed himself, but I read yesterday that he
is protesting about his treatment at a secure mental hospital.
Alternatively, I suppose my memory could be faulty, or the info I
received in the past could have been incorrect, but I prefer the
parallel Universes theory - it's more fun.
> I do think time exists though. Time is the function that
>describes a passage between occurances. You can plot relative time, how long
>it takes between your established control and when things started to happen.
In the end, as quantum physicist Neils Bohr pointed out, physics is a
map of our own minds projected outwards.
--
Martin Thompson martinATnospamtucana.demon.co.uk
London, UK
Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk
Free Regular Income: http://www.virtualis.com/vr/mthomps4/vrp.html
"Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.