[MD] Reality Lies Outside Linear Time

[Carl Thames]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Khoo Hock Aun" <khoohockaun at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Reality Lies Outside Linear Time


> Sorry this should read:
>
> ....In reality, time is "NOT" only linear but multilinear and omnilinear 
> and
> happening all at once and everywhere.....

Noted.

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Khoo Hock Aun 
> <khoohockaun at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Dear all,
>>
>> I would like to reply to at least two threads this weekend, when I get 
>> past
>> some meetings tomorrow and some work laid out for me.
>>
>> But before then I want to catch this thought before it flies away.
>>
>> Take Time. Time is percieved as linear because we have clocks constructed
>> to measure it. We have it around us everyday, embedded in our computers, 
>> our
>> phones, every manmade device around us.
>>
>> Yet it is the approximation of changes that we observe around us when we
>> look at the world in an empirical sense. The seasons change, the day
>> transforms into night, the world around us manifests changes every 
>> moment,
>> every second and we try to capture the change through our invention of 
>> time.
>>
>> Since we think we percieve change as linear, as a chain of cause and
>> effect, particularly when in isolation, we think therefore that time is
>> linear. But it is a construct of time that we have invented ourselves,
>> manmade so that we think through this device, we can control the 
>> environment
>> aorund us.

I spent a LOT of time on this one.  Time is a concern of mine because of 
it's inclusion in the Space/Time concept.  The current Newtonian physics say 
that everything exists in a specific place at a specific time.  That's how 
we know it exists.  The problem is that time is almost totally subjective, 
depending on the focal point from which it is observed.  If I'm travelling 
at 99% of C, my concept of time's movement is different from yours as you 
sit in your recliner watching television.  To me, this makes it "not real." 
If it were a real thing, then it would appear the same to both of us. 
Within that, I understand that your perspective isn't the same as mine. 
(The problem of consential reality rears it's ugly head here.)

>> The reality is that Time is an artificial manmade pattern that is a 
>> result
>> of our empiricism; our objective worldview; where we as the subject view 
>> the
>> world around us as the object.
>> The reality is that cause and effect is only linear when viewed in
>> isolation, when we have taken a laboratory experiment and suspended all
>> other causes and effects, save the one we choose to observe. The reality 
>> is
>> that cause and effect, and "Time" itself spreads out as would a ripple
>> affecting everything in its path, every molecule in its lattice at the 
>> same
>> time.

I asked a friend who is a lot smarter than I am about this, and her response 
was that time is an anchor.  That makes sense to me.  For example, if 
someone asks you what you did last Tuesday at 11:30 in the morning, you 
think about what happened on Tuesday.  If you can't remember exactly, you 
try to narrow it down by thinking about what you did on Monday and 
Wednesday.  As you zero in, specific events come to mind until you're able, 
with a bit of luck, to remember exactly what you were doing at 11:30 on that 
Tuesday.

>> In reality, time is [not] only linear but multilinear and omnilinear and
>> happening all at once and everywhere. When we have mastered what time 
>> really
>> is, we have then mastered the universe. Which then opens up what others
>> regard as mysticism.

I guess this is the heart of the problem.  Exactly whose reality are you 
talking about?  I think it's all a matter of perspective, when you're 
talking about time.  Because it's so subjective, I question again how valid 
it really is.  To throw a huge monkey wrench into my own concept, when a 
national level event occurs, we are told about it and that locks that event 
into a specific time, reguardless of who was thinking about it.  Then again, 
there are time zones involved, which makes it even more questionable.  We 
could both argue, correctly, that the event happened either at 8 a.m. or at 
10 p.m., depending on where we were at the time.  See how easily this gets 
confusing?  Am I picking nits here?  I don't know.

>> Subject Object Metaphysics has its roots in this framework of linear 
>> time.
>> The Reality, the Metaphysics of Quality if you like,  that lies outside
>> this worldview shows us an interlocked and interrelated uinverse where we
>> are all connected and all the same at the same time. And the secret to 
>> the
>> time machine; or a machine that transcends Time.

I think I agree with this.  If there is no time, in a reality we can agree 
on, then even the concept is irrelevant.  We know that the only time we can 
actually experience is the "now."  We have ingrained the concept so firmly 
that if we eliminate time as a concept, especially linear time, what happens 
then?  We know people are born, live, and then die, and we need to account 
for that in some way.  We have developed a system wherein even distance is 
measured by it.  How do we describe it in a relevant way without referring 
to time?  "How far away is the sun?"  "It is about 8 light minutes from us." 
What's a light minute?" "The distance covered by light in one minute." 
Minutes are linear time.

>> The idea of an individual has no meaning or sense in such a world view.

So the concept of an individual has no concept outside of linear time?  As 
of 9:21 on Satuday morning, I'm sure you exist.  I'm reasonably certain that 
I exist.  Do you see the problem?

>> Khoo Hock Aun

Glad to meet you.  Be warned, I can get a bit annoying with my questions. 
The probem is that I don't understand very much at all, and am constatnly in 
doubt about what I think I do understand.  Because of that, I keep asking 
questions about just about everything.  I ask patience. <G>

Carl