Perspective! I like perspectives, except I can't see anything without my glasses because I have like 20-1 million vision haha, I could be legally blind.
Imagine anything is possible (well, technically it can be, but you know what I mean)
What if circles were concave and not convex?
What if works like M.C. Escher's could exist in a three-dimensional world?
What if distance and time could be negative? What would they look like?
Is life like a dot coded drawing?
Was life created? Or the creator?
Does Bigfoot exist?
OK, now Anonpower has gone off on a tangent. She needs to work on her project again!
Imagine anything is possible (well, technically it can be, but you know what I mean)
What if circles were concave and not convex?
What if works like M.C. Escher's could exist in a three-dimensional world?
What if distance and time could be negative? What would they look like?
Is life like a dot coded drawing?
Was life created? Or the creator?
Does Bigfoot exist?
OK, now Anonpower has gone off on a tangent. She needs to work on her project again!
The fifth philosopher says:
No, no. It is true that some cows are black in a story written by Pathfinder on Internet!
No, no. It is true that some cows are black in a story written by Pathfinder on Internet!
Funny questions, Anonpower :)
Actually, circles are concave if you look at them from the inside :)
Some theories about the universe say that time and space indeed can be negative. A theory assumes that our universe is just the half of the results of the big bang, and the other half is a negative universe, in which time's direction is the opposite of ours. The whole universe is heading towards a negative future what we call past, but all the creatures dwelling in that universe call this negative future their real future, and they call our future past. The theory emerged from the concept that if the universe will eventually become empty because it expands so much that all the particles and metaparticles will burst, then the material laws of the universe won't exist anymore, and the behavior of energy becomes inverse. Thus will begin the shrinking of the universe in a negative time direction, which will eventually lead to the same big bang, which we know as the beginning of our own universe. So technically there are two universes, one with the other's inverse time and space, and on the both ends of the universes' existence, they become each others :)
Of course, we can say that these two universes are just one, and time behaves like a quantum oscillator, thus it once goes from the beginning to the end, then from the end to the beginning, and so on and so forth :) And, since our own experiences are based on the linearity of time, we will never know if time is actually going forward or backward :)
I like M.C.Escher anyway. Look at this :)
Actually, circles are concave if you look at them from the inside :)
Some theories about the universe say that time and space indeed can be negative. A theory assumes that our universe is just the half of the results of the big bang, and the other half is a negative universe, in which time's direction is the opposite of ours. The whole universe is heading towards a negative future what we call past, but all the creatures dwelling in that universe call this negative future their real future, and they call our future past. The theory emerged from the concept that if the universe will eventually become empty because it expands so much that all the particles and metaparticles will burst, then the material laws of the universe won't exist anymore, and the behavior of energy becomes inverse. Thus will begin the shrinking of the universe in a negative time direction, which will eventually lead to the same big bang, which we know as the beginning of our own universe. So technically there are two universes, one with the other's inverse time and space, and on the both ends of the universes' existence, they become each others :)
Of course, we can say that these two universes are just one, and time behaves like a quantum oscillator, thus it once goes from the beginning to the end, then from the end to the beginning, and so on and so forth :) And, since our own experiences are based on the linearity of time, we will never know if time is actually going forward or backward :)
I like M.C.Escher anyway. Look at this :)
The fifth philosopher says:
No, no. It is true that some cows are black in a story written by Pathfinder on Internet!
No, no. It is true that some cows are black in a story written by Pathfinder on Internet!
No, no. It was told in a story that someone said that some cows are black. But of course, this wasn't the point of the story...
HO-LY SHIZZES!!
WHERE did you find the Lego picture?!! What did they DO to it?!
And of cows: It is true that whoever is looking at the clouds believes in a moment in time in that particular place from that perspective that in that moment in time in that particular place from that perspective one sees things which appear to be cows that have one side that appears to be completely not-white. Unless, of course, none of that is true.
COW FIGHT!!! LONGEST PHILISOPHICAL COW PARAGRAPH WINS A COOKIE FROM ANONPOWER!!!
I kinda find the whole universe backwards-forewards thing highly depressing, as if the question we try to answer here is indeed pointless. Getting out of the emo ditch,why would the same things happen over and over the exxact same way? I see where you got it would be like going back in time, but when the particles were undergoing the Big Crunch, they would ALL have to form exactly-just-so into what they were pre-...ripping-apart-ness (Way to go anonpower, greeeeat word choice...)
WHERE did you find the Lego picture?!! What did they DO to it?!
And of cows: It is true that whoever is looking at the clouds believes in a moment in time in that particular place from that perspective that in that moment in time in that particular place from that perspective one sees things which appear to be cows that have one side that appears to be completely not-white. Unless, of course, none of that is true.
COW FIGHT!!! LONGEST PHILISOPHICAL COW PARAGRAPH WINS A COOKIE FROM ANONPOWER!!!
I kinda find the whole universe backwards-forewards thing highly depressing, as if the question we try to answer here is indeed pointless. Getting out of the emo ditch,why would the same things happen over and over the exxact same way? I see where you got it would be like going back in time, but when the particles were undergoing the Big Crunch, they would ALL have to form exactly-just-so into what they were pre-...ripping-apart-ness (Way to go anonpower, greeeeat word choice...)
I kinda find the whole universe backwards-forewards thing highly depressing, as if the question we try to answer here is indeed pointless. Getting out of the emo ditch,why would the same things happen over and over the exxact same way? I see where you got it would be like going back in time, but when the particles were undergoing the Big Crunch, they would ALL have to form exactly-just-so into what they were pre-...ripping-apart-ness (Way to go anonpower, greeeeat word choice...)
I'm not quite sure what you mean. But as for repeating over and over:
since you always experience only one tiny fragment of time at once, then it actually doesn't matter to you (or anyone) if the universe exists in every fragment at once, or only in one fragment at a time. Our experience extends only to the particular moments which we experience as present (which are actually the very-near past). So even if the universe exists in every time-fragment altogether at once, you'll never know. As for the subjective experience of the world, it is completely irrelevant wether time stands and separates the things which are moving inside it, or flows through and around the things which are standing inside it. This question only becomes relevant when we try to understand the origin of the universe, or how the universe works. But either way, your experience will not extend to more than the previous few fragments of time (of course this 'few' is actually a number exponentially increasing by the distance of experience).
And of course you also can't possibly know wether you live your life first time, or you've lived it millions of times already.
This is actually funny anyway, I think this is the greatest logical game ever. You can never know if the world really expands for 13.7 billions of years, or it was created five seconds ago with all these memories of ours, all these light particles on their way, and so on. Or wether we live on a holodeck, like in Star Trek, or not. It is as well possible that this is a matrix and there is an outer world too, and this is actually not a greater fallacy than that God created the world. It's just a bit younger theory :)
If all the universe's "time fragments" existed together then wouldn't that mean that all of the universe's 13.7 billion years exist at once, and over and over too? Metaphysics I can only sort of do.
Anyway Path, do a Cow!
And on my last one peoples, I meant to say "cow" and not "cloud", which goes to show how spacey I can be :)
And on my last one peoples, I meant to say "cow" and not "cloud", which goes to show how spacey I can be :)
If all the universe's "time fragments" existed together then wouldn't that mean that all of the universe's 13.7 billion years exist at once, and over and over too? Metaphysics I can only sort of do.
No it doesn't. If something exists in the same time with something else then they don't follow each other in time. If all the states which may be called a fragment of time exist simultaneously, this means that repetition doesn't exist.
But even if the fragments of time exist in a linear order and they follow each other, it doesn't change that you can't experience the repetition.
BTW: if you register, you'll be able to change your text.
I might think about registering, but uuhhghhh, you are just confusing me now, I shouldn't be asking questions about metaphysics though, so it's my fault..
But still! First it's about repetition, and then you said if they all existed together they would be independent of each other- you said "don't follow each other in time" so that would mean the universe, if it was a 13.7 billion year simutaneous moment, that it would be independent of itself (or something), but what I;m getting is a multiverse made up of the universe at each moment in time, which doesn't make sense.
I know i did say "if", so this is entirely my fault. But what I got from your "we can't know if it all was created five minutes ago of five millenia ago, or if this is our first or one billionth life", is that the universe is an instantaneous 13.7 billion year moment, and then you said if that happened they wouldn't "follow each other" and now I'm confusing myself and I', going to take a chill pill.
But still! First it's about repetition, and then you said if they all existed together they would be independent of each other- you said "don't follow each other in time" so that would mean the universe, if it was a 13.7 billion year simutaneous moment, that it would be independent of itself (or something), but what I;m getting is a multiverse made up of the universe at each moment in time, which doesn't make sense.
I know i did say "if", so this is entirely my fault. But what I got from your "we can't know if it all was created five minutes ago of five millenia ago, or if this is our first or one billionth life", is that the universe is an instantaneous 13.7 billion year moment, and then you said if that happened they wouldn't "follow each other" and now I'm confusing myself and I', going to take a chill pill.
I think you look at this 13.7 billion years time as something what separates the universe to 13.7 billion (multiplied by some) different universes, and you call this a multiverse. Do I see it correct?
"If something exists in the same time with something else then they don't follow each other in time." - this is for objects in space-time, within one universe.
"If all the states which may be called a fragment of time exist simultaneously, this means that repetition doesn't exist." - this is for time itself, meaning that if you look at the universe from "outside" and take a look at time, the you see all the time fragments existing simultaneously. When you try to imagine this, you see it as a line of which every point is the whole universe, but just one moment in time. This line exists (according to this theory), the whole line exists at once, but you can only see the line itself from outside this space-time. Hence all the movements will seem to be standing states, thus movement will not exist, and so repetition won't occur, because there won't be anything to be repeated.
Movement can only be defined together with time. If your system is outside of space-time then you can't define movement. On the other hand, in such a state movement will be altered to being everywhere at once.
"If something exists in the same time with something else then they don't follow each other in time." - this is for objects in space-time, within one universe.
"If all the states which may be called a fragment of time exist simultaneously, this means that repetition doesn't exist." - this is for time itself, meaning that if you look at the universe from "outside" and take a look at time, the you see all the time fragments existing simultaneously. When you try to imagine this, you see it as a line of which every point is the whole universe, but just one moment in time. This line exists (according to this theory), the whole line exists at once, but you can only see the line itself from outside this space-time. Hence all the movements will seem to be standing states, thus movement will not exist, and so repetition won't occur, because there won't be anything to be repeated.
Movement can only be defined together with time. If your system is outside of space-time then you can't define movement. On the other hand, in such a state movement will be altered to being everywhere at once.
You saw correctly what I assumed. But good grief, I'm barely any good in geometry, and then we put astrophysics and metaphysics in this....I sort of think about dimensions, but I wasn't thinking about lines. I don't even know if I could picture what I was thinking but I can understand the line and the explanation. Now I don't get my original thought x_x
But that did remind me of a question I once asked my friend:
"Distance can't be negative, but what do you picture when you try to imagine it?"
Friend says a "backwards line", I said I saw warping of a sort.
What do you imagine?
But that did remind me of a question I once asked my friend:
"Distance can't be negative, but what do you picture when you try to imagine it?"
Friend says a "backwards line", I said I saw warping of a sort.
What do you imagine?
Also, you never answered my questions:
WHAT IN THE NAME OF SOMETHING OR OTHER DID THEY DO TO THE LEGOS?! O_O
Do you think life was created, or the creator?
Does Bigfoot exist?
Is life like a dot coded drawing?
Why is Anonpower asking you all these questions?
WHAT IN THE NAME OF SOMETHING OR OTHER DID THEY DO TO THE LEGOS?! O_O
Do you think life was created, or the creator?
Does Bigfoot exist?
Is life like a dot coded drawing?
Why is Anonpower asking you all these questions?
Also, you never answered my questions:
WHAT IN THE NAME OF SOMETHING OR OTHER DID THEY DO TO THE LEGOS?! O_O
Do you think life was created, or the creator?
Does Bigfoot exist?
Is life like a dot coded drawing?
Why is Anonpower asking you all these questions?
WHAT IN THE NAME OF SOMETHING OR OTHER DID THEY DO TO THE LEGOS?! O_O
Do you think life was created, or the creator?
Does Bigfoot exist?
Is life like a dot coded drawing?
Why is Anonpower asking you all these questions?
were did you get LEGOS? and Bigfoot form and Why are you Anonpower talking about all these random questions what the point the questions you shoud be asking is now what's the point of your answer.. LOL
were did you get LEGOS? and Bigfoot form and Why are you Anonpower talking about all these random questions what the point the questions you shoud be asking is now what's the point of your answer.. LOL
There is a link at the end of the 3rd comment, look at it, there's lego.
Anonpower is a random movement, hence he(she?) always writes something, even if that something has nothing to do with the post :)
There is a link at the end of the 3rd comment, look at it, there's lego.
Anonpower is a random movement, hence he(she?) always writes something, even if that something has nothing to do with the post :)
Anonpower is a random movement, hence he(she?) always writes something, even if that something has nothing to do with the post :)
ooo OK i See what your saying that a interesting way of articulate it i guess Anonpower adding a personality in the words and that a way to releasing tension in the conversation that cool don't mind me i like to analyse thing
There is a link at the end of the 3rd comment, look at it, there's lego.
Anonpower is a random movement, hence he(she?) always writes something, even if that something has nothing to do with the post :)
Anonpower is a random movement, hence he(she?) always writes something, even if that something has nothing to do with the post :)
This is quite true... by the way, (she). :)
ooo OK i See what your saying that a interesting way of articulate it i guess Anonpower adding a personality in the words and that a way to releasing tension in the conversation that cool don't mind me i like to analyse thing
This is also quite true. Tension is scary O_O
reply
If you don't want to reply to the current thread but want to start a new thread, click here
The first philosopher says:
It is true that here the cows are black.
The second philosopher says:
No, no. It is true that here can be found cows which are black.
The third philosopher says:
No, no. It is true that here can be found cows which have at least one black side.
The fourth philosopher says:
No, no. It is true that at this place, in some time, it is possible for a human to perceive things which look like cows and which may have at least one black side.