Truth & Time
- Thread starter hariharan
- Start date
I know I'm pretty and cute! Still... thanks for the comps!;-)
Are you pretending to be hard at work??
hmm...??...mmmmh...:idea:
Answer: Truth and time are both independent!!
;-)
Are you pretending to be hard at work??
hmm...??...mmmmh...:idea:
Answer: Truth and time are both independent!!
;-)
I think you meant: Is truth time dependent or independent?
It seems to me there are certain fundamental truths which are not time dependent, in that, they have very real physical realities. We can see examples of this in science where certain principles have applied before man existed and will continue too long after we are all gone.
In terms of social truths, that is culture dependent, they are time dependent since our environments and ourselves are subject to change which denotes time. A truth may be correct one day but may be wrong the next. I am assuming certain qualities of "correct" and "truth," that maybe aren't commonly held (I'm not sure). This is where I see religion as a very dangerous thing because it attempts to stagnate truth over time - something which just isn't possible. As a result religion must change and its definition of truth must change, over time. This is one of the single best arguments against religion IMO. If the founders were actually from a real god then the supposed truth they bring shouldn't be subject to change, but we see in all religions that they are subject to change therefore the source must also be. If the source is changing then it must be a part of creation not apart from it; then it can't be from god; it is man made.
Last edited:
Good post Scott. Can you give me one example for independent of time? What actually I am trying to find is, a truth, which is independent of time. No past, present or future.
All matter is subject to time I believe. Your task is a mighty one that Aristotle sought out too. The quest led to the concept of aether, an all pervasive liquid like substance that matter is composed of and immersed in. The idea was born directly out of seeking a concrete immovable truth. I have personally examined this subject carefully since it requires a great deal of thought because the ramifications are so great.
The only one I can think of is perception. Though it is sandwiched between past and present it's dependence on them is debatable but more importantly perception isn't dependent on time, that is, time can speed up or slow down but perception (the awareness of the immediate now - this moment) remains the same. I read once that astronauts often (it said all but I hate using absolutes) reported being able to feel time moving differently while in orbit (which it does indeed do) but their perception of the present remained the same, even if it lagged behind the perceptions of people manning mission control. If this is true then the ramifications are great. This observation of theirs is untested and can't be treated as too truthful. There are all kinds of factors which might cause them to feel that way but the important thing is that they shouldn't, so if they really do, it's significant.
Would perception change with amounts of information load? Hence the passage of time fluctuates dependant on the information load on perception.
(Sorry if I'm not making sense here, it's a big concept.)
(Sorry if I'm not making sense here, it's a big concept.)
Unforgiven
Insightful thought my friend. Perhaps you're aluding to entropy? If the mind is filled with bits and orts of the mundane and banal is there capacity available to adequately conceptualize notions like "god" or "time"......
Does "time" exist where there's no system of measurement? Perhaps "time" is a convenience for creatures compelled to calculate their impact/passage as temporary entities awash in an ocean of eternity.... Since our human experience is so very brief compared to that of stars and planets "time" is a a concept of critical function in helping us to raise the possibility of "predictability"....
Insightful thought my friend. Perhaps you're aluding to entropy? If the mind is filled with bits and orts of the mundane and banal is there capacity available to adequately conceptualize notions like "god" or "time"......
Does "time" exist where there's no system of measurement? Perhaps "time" is a convenience for creatures compelled to calculate their impact/passage as temporary entities awash in an ocean of eternity.... Since our human experience is so very brief compared to that of stars and planets "time" is a a concept of critical function in helping us to raise the possibility of "predictability"....
Awesome, what I read here. A poem from Christian Morgenstern came to my mind:
Immer wieder und wieder
steigst Du hernieder
in der Erde wechselnden Schoss,
bis Du gelernt im Licht zu lesen,
dass Leben und Sterben eins gewesen
und alle Zeiten zeitenlos.
Meaning...
Again and again
you come down
into Earth's changing lap,
until you have learned to read in the light,
that life and death are one,
and all times are timeless.
Immer wieder und wieder
steigst Du hernieder
in der Erde wechselnden Schoss,
bis Du gelernt im Licht zu lesen,
dass Leben und Sterben eins gewesen
und alle Zeiten zeitenlos.
Meaning...
Again and again
you come down
into Earth's changing lap,
until you have learned to read in the light,
that life and death are one,
and all times are timeless.
I think everyone has felt time itself slow down or speed up but how real is that perception? In my opinion not very since on earth we are all in the same time line, that is, time moves at the same speed, so any perception must be based on information load and/or personal enjoyment of a current activity. For example, given a mundane task and a cubical with a clock facing the worker, time can move very slowly, however, someone else who enjoys the task might find time moves rapidly.
We have all heard people say that as you age the days grow shorter. This is true and science has provided the answer: as we age our minds slow down and our ability to process information also slows down; as a result days seem to speed up. This is only a perception because any child will tell you that time moves so slowly - exactly as an older person remembers it once did for them too, that is, before the days began to speed up.
I have reason to think time does not move uniformly across the planet however and have proven for myself that this is true. There are also physical manifestations of this occurrence which has led me to rethink some physical laws that in light of my evidence seem flawed. I'm not going into that here however, but there does seem to be evidence which suggests that people are capable of perceiving these fluctuations (which shouldn't exist at all and they certainly shouldn't be perceptible). These perceptions are capable of generating many "paranormal" experiences that for certain reasons aren't yet demonstrable in a lab and which are also the reason for many anomalies found in current scientific experimentation.
So what I am saying is that perception of time does change with information load as in when we age and our ability to take in information slows time speeds up, or when we are bored time slows, but that there may also be very real and actual perceptions of time variance which we can perceive as in when astronauts report such perceptions from orbit.
Your perception and my perception can be different. There is word in Sanskrit “MAYA”. It means nothing is real. So there is no real truth?
I think that depends on what you mean by truth. The ancients were a lot cleverer than we give them credit for. I think they understood realities that we have forgotten. They didn't write them down because they were accepted realities and therefor they thought there was no need - surely no one could forget that, they thought.
Hi Scott,
I am trying to find at least one thing, which is independent of time. As for as to my knowledge I feel everything is dependent on time including our thoughts. When it is dependent how can call it as a truth. I found no answer so far. “Nothing is True” is this the only truth?
I am trying to find at least one thing, which is independent of time. As for as to my knowledge I feel everything is dependent on time including our thoughts. When it is dependent how can call it as a truth. I found no answer so far. “Nothing is True” is this the only truth?
I would say so. I don't think it is good enough to conclude that the universe must exist simple because we perceive it, because in reality it can't exist - it is just not possible. It is an error to say that it does just because we perceive it does and yet here we are; our perception is completely at odds with what we know is impossible. So what are we to believe? Logic or our own eyes? It seems irreconcilable.
You brought up the word MAYA and in the metaphor from which that word was born many mysteries are laid bare, however, as I said before: the ancients understood a lot more than we give them credit for.
So in that "nothing is true is the only truth" I must agree though with one caveat: that it is only true over time; from outside of time there would be a great deal of "truth," but since that isn't possible for us due to our limitations of perception, we are left only looking at fragments from which we can only glean tidbits - which is why we exist.
I would say so. I don't think it is good enough to conclude that the universe must exist simple because we perceive it, because in reality it can't exist - it is just not possible. It is an error to say that it does just because we perceive it does and yet here we are; our perception is completely at odds with what we know is impossible. So what are we to believe? Logic or our own eyes? It seems irreconcilable.
You brought up the word MAYA and in the metaphor from which that word was born many mysteries are laid bare, however, as I said before: the ancients understood a lot more than we give them credit for.
So in that "nothing is true is the only truth" I must agree though with one caveat: that it is only true over time; from outside of time there would be a great deal of "truth," but since that isn't possible for us due to our limitations of perception, we are left only looking at fragments from which we can only glean tidbits - which is why we exist.
I would say so. I don't think it is good enough to conclude that the universe must exist simple because we perceive it, because in reality it can't exist - it is just not possible. It is an error to say that it does just because we perceive it does and yet here we are; our perception is completely at odds with what we know is impossible. So what are we to believe? Logic or our own eyes? It seems irreconcilable.
You brought up the word MAYA and in the metaphor from which that word was born many mysteries are laid bare, however, as I said before: the ancients understood a lot more than we give them credit for.
So in that "nothing is true is the only truth" I must agree though with one caveat: that it is only true over time; from outside of time there would be a great deal of "truth," but since that isn't possible for us due to our limitations of perception, we are left only looking at fragments from which we can only glean tidbits - which is why we exist.
I would say so. I don't think it is good enough to conclude that the universe must exist simple because we perceive it, because in reality it can't exist - it is just not possible. It is an error to say that it does just because we perceive it does and yet here we are; our perception is completely at odds with what we know is impossible. So what are we to believe? Logic or our own eyes? It seems irreconcilable.
You brought up the word MAYA and in the metaphor from which that word was born many mysteries are laid bare, however, as I said before: the ancients understood a lot more than we give them credit for.
So in that "nothing is true is the only truth" I must agree though with one caveat: that it is only true over time; from outside of time there would be a great deal of "truth," but since that isn't possible for us due to our limitations of perception, we are left only looking at fragments from which we can only glean tidbits - which is why we exist.
I would say so. I don't think it is good enough to conclude that the universe must exist simple because we perceive it, because in reality it can't exist - it is just not possible. It is an error to say that it does just because we perceive it does and yet here we are; our perception is completely at odds with what we know is impossible. So what are we to believe? Logic or our own eyes? It seems irreconcilable.
You brought up the word MAYA and in the metaphor from which that word was born many mysteries are laid bare, however, as I said before: the ancients understood a lot more than we give them credit for.
So in that "nothing is true is the only truth" I must agree though with one caveat: that it is only true over time; from outside of time there would be a great deal of "truth," but since that isn't possible for us due to our limitations of perception, we are left only looking at fragments from which we can only glean tidbits - which is why we exist.