no i haven't! the basis of my theory has
always been that
something exists that is time, but we can never understand it because the only 'representations' of time that we have are all 'man-made'.
:
Molluck, you just got owned by BM but sadky it doesn't let me add more rep to him  |
oh, so the great conundrum of time itself has been settled because Laser said one person got 'owned' by the other?
i dont think so. if people would stop being so arrogant and 'brainwashed', we might get somewhere, instead of BM constantly dismissing my theory in unbelievable short-sightedness. until now, i have been using me noggin for my theory, but seeing as most people are on BM's 'side' as usual, i thought it best to attempt to find an internet source that does not contrast with me.
may i say i was very surprised by what i found;
:
Some philosophers, notably Zeno and McTaggart, answer the question, "What is time?" by replying that it is nothing because it doesn't exist. In a similar vein, the early 20th century English philosopher F. H. Bradley argues, "Time, like space, has most evidently proved not to be real, but a contradictory appearance....The problem of change defies solution." However, most philosophers agree that time does exist. They just can't agree on what it is.
Whatever time is, it is not "time." One has four letters; the other does not. Nevertheless, it might help us understand time if we improved our understanding of the sense and reference of the word "time." Should the proper answer to the question "What is time?" produce a definition of the word as a means of capturing its sense? Definitely not--if the definition must be some analysis that provides a simple paraphrase in all its occurrences. There are just too many varied occurrences of the word: time out, behind the times, in the nick of time, and so forth.
But how about a definition that is more realistic? Might it be helpful to explore the grammar of the term "time" in either ordinary language or the physics literature? Most philosophers today would agree with A. N. Prior who remarked that, "there are genuine metaphysical problems, but I think you have to talk about grammar at least a little bit in order to solve most of them." However, do we learn enough about what time is when we learn about the grammatical intricacies of the word? Ordinary-language philosophers are especially interested in time talk, in what Wittgenstein called the "language game" of discourse about time. Wittgenstein's expectation is that by drawing attention to ordinary ways of speaking about time we will dissolve rather than answer our philosophical question. But most philosophers of time are unsatisfied with this approach and have the goal of uncovering important features about time itself.
That was Aristotle's goal when he provided an early, careful answer to our question, "What is time?" by declaring that "time is the measure of change" [Physics, chapter 12], but he emphasizes "that time is not change [itself]" because a change "may be faster or slower, but not time..." [Physics, chapter 10]. For example, a specific change such as the descent of a leaf can be faster or slower, but time itself can't be faster or slower. Aristotle advocates what is now referred to as the relational theory of time because he believed that "there is no time apart from change...." [Physics, chapter 11]. Aristotle was clear that time is not discrete but "is continuous.... In respect of size there is no minimum; for every line is divided ad infinitum. Hence it is so with time" [Physics, chapter 11].
|
http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/time.htm
i genuinely did not know of this information, and it also proves that the question "what is time?" will never be answered. i think the whole site just proves that the human mind cannot possibly comprehend the theory of time as a whole, hence why i mentioned;
:
there will be no resolve to this conundrum 'till a being not from this planet/dimension, of level or better intelligence than our own, turns up and says "yeah, its 5 o'clock back home", showing its acknowledgement of time.
time is the limit of our intelligence, breaking that limit is impossible
|
EDIT: @Max: no, i dont think im in the Matrix.