What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 27
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I won't tell. :)
--
I'm forever slicing through eternity with the blade of my mind.
♪ Hoping to carve out some shit ♪
Attempts in vain, thoughts fade.
Seconds die, moments are lazy
Minutes huddle with hours
And days and nights get tangled up again
# Weeks and months are intertwined #
I can't see the edges. Maybe I'm stupid.
;)
Or maybe eternity has
A peculiar composition,
And within infinity.
Where time is a joint?
And carve out of eternity
Some shit...
You can do it,
As long as you don't beat laziness!
:)
Yeah, I've only got through 15 pages of this argument. I would like to return to the question, what was the reason that made the topicstarter open a time branch in a forex forum, and not only made him open it, but also to practice it?
From my perspective the situation seems to be as follows: the topicstarter wanted to find out if traders use altered states of consciousness in their real trading, and if so, how to implement it in a controlled, not spontaneous, manner? This is probably the only good reason to bring up the subject of time on forex forums.
As for the fact that you can look into the future, find out where the currency moved, go back in time and open in that direction, I can say unambiguously, it is real, I did it many times and was profitable. Only I did it spontaneously - I just had a dream, in which I looked that my position, say, going long on the pound, went into profit by X points. I'd wake up, open the position and it would actually go where I saw it in the dream.
Whatever disputes there are about the definition of "time", in my opinion the most accurate answer was given by P.D. Ouspensky in his essay "Tertium Organum". I have attached this book to the post.
In particular I quote:
"The hardest part: knowing what we know and what we don't know. We know that at the first stage of self-consciousness, two obvious facts catch the eye of man. The existence of the world in which he lives. - and the existence of consciousness in himself. Neither of these can be proved or disproved by man, but both are fact and reality for him.
The author was well aware that the world as perceived by man is, as Castaneda said, merely a description. The very first thing a person is aware of is that there is a self and there is a non-self. We perceive something. Our attention interprets this flow of external influences into a picture of the world that we perceive. Now look at those pictures that one perceives in dreams - for it is another world in which the laws of our everyday world lose force. But back to the term time. Trying to define it all here everybody come to one conclusion - time is something moving (changing). From what we can conclude that a human being perceives time as a process. It means that a partial clarity corresponding to our description of time we can deduce through operation of logical analogy. Now let us return to the dream state. If a person recalls in all details HOW he perceives time in a dream, he will realize that he does not feel time at all in dreams. For him the whole chain of dream events is as if simultaneous. I only pointed out this point to illustrate that our concept of time depends on what picture of the world we perceive. For an everyday person, it is one perception, while for a drunken person (read: for an altered state of consciousness) it is quite different. But the fact is that we perceive time as something external (not as a property of our body) and at the same time we cannot shake off the feeling that this external permeates all of us like water permeates a sponge and like air permeates water. Therefore we cannot say unequivocally that time does not belong to man and we cannot say that it does. Now, to clarify the issue under discussion, I will cite some more quotations by this great thinker, after which I suggest the topic-starter to reveal the reasons that prompted him to create this thread after all.
"We know in space the relationship of point to line, line to surface, surface to body. The same must be the relation of three-dimensional space to higher space."
What the author means is that a point is a cut of a line. A line is a cut of a plane. A plane is a section of a volume. A volume is the similarity of a point.
"Indeed, if we dwell on this thought and consider the profound difference between a point and a line, between a line and a surface, between a surface and a body - we realise how much new and incomprehensible to us the fourth dimension must lie.
Just as in a point it is impossible to imagine a line and the laws of a line, just as in a line it is impossible to imagine a surface and the laws of a surface, just as in a surface it is impossible to imagine a body and understand the laws of a body, so in our space it is impossible to imagine a body having more than three dimensions and impossible to understand the laws of existence of this body. But by studying the mutual relations of point, line, surface and body we start to learn something about the fourth dimension, i.e. the space of four dimensions. We start to learn what it can be compared to our three-dimensional space and what it cannot be. And this is especially important, because it gets rid of a lot of deep-rooted illusions that are very harmful to proper cognition."
"We recognise what cannot be in the four-dimensional space, and this allows us to establish what can be there.
Let's try to look at these relationships within our space and see what conclusions we can draw from examining them.
We know that our geometry treats a line as a trace of the movement of a point, a surface as a trace of the movement of a line and a body as a trace of the movement of a surface. Based on this we ask ourselves the question: can we not consider a "body of four dimensions" as a trace of motion of a body of three dimensions?
What kind of motion is it and in which direction?
A point moving in space and leaving a trace of its motion in the form of a line moves in a direction that does not consist in it because there is no direction in the point.
A line, moving in space and leaving a trace of its motion as a surface, moves along the direction not comprising it, because moving along the direction comprising it, a line always remains only a line.
A surface moving in space and leaving a trace of its motion as a body also moves in a direction not comprising it. If it moves along one of the directions contained within it, it always remains a surface. To leave a trace of its motion in the form of a 'body' or a three-dimensional figure, it must move away from itself, move along a direction that does not consist in itself."
"By analogy, in order to leave the trace of its motion in the form of a four-dimensional figure, the body must also move in a direction that does not consist in it; in other words, the body must withdraw from itself, move away from itself. Further on it will be established how we should understand this.
For now we may say that the direction of movement along the fourth dimension lies outside all those directions which are possible in a three-dimensional figure."
"We regard a line as an infinite number of points, a surface as an infinite number of lines a body as an infinite number of surfaces.
By analogy, we may assume that a body of four dimensions should be regarded as an infinite number of bodies of three dimensions, and a space of four dimensions as an infinite number of three-dimensional spaces.
Then, we know that a line is bounded by points, a surface is bounded by lines, a body is bounded by surfaces.
It is possible that a space of four dimensions is bounded by bodies of three dimensions."
"By analogy, a three-dimensional body (cube, ball, pyramid) can probably be seen as a section of a body of four dimensions, and all three-dimensional space as a section of a four-dimensional one."
"So what is the direction?
To answer this question, we must look at all, whether we know motion in a direction that does not consist in three-dimensional space.
We know that all movement in space is accompanied by what we might call movement in time. Moreover, we know that even if not moving in space, everything existing is eternally moving in time.
And equally in all cases, when we speak of movement or lack of movement, we have in mind the idea of what was before, what is now and what will be after. In other words, the idea of time. The idea of motion, of any kind, as well as the idea of absence of motion, is inseparably connected with the idea of time. All movement and lack of movement takes place in time and cannot take place outside time. Consequently, before we speak of what motion is, we must answer the question: What is time?
Time is the greatest and most difficult riddle facing humanity."
"But our conception of our 'being in time' is incredibly confused and unclear.
First of all, let us examine our relationship to the past, the present and the future. We usually think that the past no longer exists. It has gone, disappeared, changed, turned into something else. There is also no future. It is not there yet. It has not come yet, has not been formed. We call the present the moment when the future passes into the past, that is, the moment when the phenomenon moves from one non-existence to the other. Only this brief moment of the phenomenon exists in reality for us; before it existed in possibility, now it will exist in the memory. But this brief moment is essentially a fiction. It has no dimension. We can rightly say that the present does not exist. We can never grasp it. What we have grasped is always already past.
If we stop there, we have to admit that the world does not exist. There is only some phantasmagoria of illusions, flaring up and going out.
We are usually not aware of this and do not notice that our ordinary view of time leads us to utter absurdity.
Let us imagine a foolish traveller who goes from one town to another and is halfway between the two. The foolish traveller thinks that the city from which he left last week no longer exists and is now a thing of the past: its walls are ruined, its towers have fallen, its people are extinct or have scattered. The city he is to visit in a few days is also no more, but is being hastily built for his arrival and will be ready, populated and settled on the day of his arrival, the day after his departure, just like the first one, will be destroyed.
We think of things in time in this way - everything passes, nothing returns! Spring has passed, it is gone.
Thus, strictly speaking, for us there is no past, no future, no present. Nothing exists! And yet we are living, feeling, thinking - something surrounds us. Consequently, there is some mistake in the usual attitude to time. This error we must try to find."
"Can it make the blind man see and see the road he has taken and which lies before him?
Only thought can give us real sight instead of that crude groping we now call sight. Only through thought can we see. And once we begin to see, we will certainly see the past and the future. We do not see the past and the future only because we do not see anything, but only grope, and what we grope we call the present. When we begin to see, the past and the future will also become the present. This division of time into past, present and future has arisen precisely because we live by touch. We have to start seeing and it will disappear.
The past and the future cannot not exist, because if they do not exist, the present cannot exist. They definitely exist somewhere, only we don't see them.
The present, if we contrast it with the past and the future, is the most unreal of all unrealities.
We have to admit that the past, the present and the future are indistinguishable from each other, that there is only one present, but we cannot see it, because at any given moment we experience only a little piece of this present, which we consider to be real, denying the real existence of everything else.
If we accept this, our view of everything around us must change radically.
Usually we see time as a distraction, made by observing the really existing movement. That is we think that by observing the motion or changes of relations between things and by comparing relations which existed before, exist now and may exist in future, we deduce the idea of time. In how far this view is correct, we will see further on.
The idea of time is made up of a view of the past, a view of the present and a view of the future."
"The past and the future are equally undefined, equally exist in all possibilities and equally exist at the same time.
We call time the distance separating events in the order of their sequence and linking them into different wholes.
This distance lies in a direction that does not consist in three-dimensional space. If we think of this direction in space, it is the fourth dimension of space.
It meets all the requirements that we, on the basis of previous arguments, can lay down for the fourth dimension.
It is incommensurable with the dimensions of three-dimensional space, as a year is incommensurable with St Petersburg. It is perpendicular to all directions of three-dimensional space and not parallel to any of them.
In short, a good quote. That's the most logical way to look at the concept of time I've ever seen. Let the source speak for me. And I invite the topic-starter to satisfy our curiosity :)
P.S.
Oh, that's something else I wanted to say, since in our minds, the perception of any process takes a form, I think that the question "to figure out the shape of time" was put by the topicstarter was quite legitimate. But that doesn't mean we can recreate an exact copy of that form, I think the most we can do is get a bunch of semblances that will give us more or less clear representations.
(The process of learning can come in the form of play, in the form of rote learning, in the form of perceiving the teacher's story... The process does have a form. If the passage of time is a process, it also has a form)
Whatever disputes there are about the definition of the term "time", in my opinion the most precise answer was given by P.D. Ouspensky in his essay "Tertium Organum". I have attached this book to the post.
In particular I quote:
"The hardest part: knowing what we know and what we don't know. We know that at the first stage of self-consciousness, two obvious facts catch the eye of man. The existence of the world in which he lives. - and the existence of consciousness in himself. Neither of these can be proved or disproved by man, but both are fact and reality for him.
The author was well aware that the world as perceived by man is, as Castaneda said, merely a description. The very first thing one realises is that there is a self and there is a non-self.
There, in "Tertium Organum", though perhaps in "The New Model of the Universe".
Ouspensky has written very well about time. What it is and why we perceive it that way.
Waiting for your quotes...
In short, a good quote. That's the most logical way to look at the concept of time I've ever seen. Let the source speak for me. And I invite the topic-starter to satisfy our curiosity :)
P.S.
Oh, that's something else I wanted to say, since in our minds, the perception of any process takes a form, I think that the question "to figure out the shape of time" was put by the topicstarter was quite legitimate. But that doesn't mean we can recreate an exact copy of that form, I think the most we can do is get a bunch of semblances that will give us more or less clear representations.
(The process of learning can come in the form of play, in the form of rote learning, in the form of perceiving the teacher's story... The process does have a form. If the passage of time is a process, it also has a form).
Thank you for the quotes.
But it doesn't say everything about time.
We are waiting for the sequel...
Thank you for the quotes.
But it doesn't say everything about time.
We are waiting for the sequel...
Yes, it says that to understand the idea of the fourth dimension we have to go beyond it into the fifth dimension and look at the fourth "from above". If I go on, even if only quoting selectively, the forum thread will turn into a book. It is for this reason that I have attached the book to the post - it is broken down into chapters, chapter descriptions are given - in short, everything is as in the original. It's better if the forum dwellers read this book - I've given more than enough starter material. Especially since the book is in html format - that is, the navigation is well done.
In attempting to define it, everyone here comes to the same conclusion - that time is something moving (changing). From which we can conclude that man perceives time as a process.
A moving frame of reference? How do you imagine a moving "basis" for measurement of frequency of vibration?
Yes, it says that to understand the idea of the fourth dimension we have to go beyond it into the fifth dimension and look at the fourth "from above". If I go on, even if only quoting selectively, the forum thread will turn into a book. It is for this reason that I have attached the book to the post - it is broken down into chapters, chapter descriptions are given - in short, everything is as in the original. Better if the forum dwellers read this book - I've given more than enough starter material.
No, I'm talking a little bit about something else...
That is, about time as an "intangible" space by our consciousness.
But that may be in his other book.