[notime] No such thing as motion - Can you prove the past?

Sun Sep 13 17:55:50 MST 2015

Time, space and motion with the time and space. All are agreements made in
order to experience existence as incarnated on Earth.

My mind is blown. Great post

Rob S.

Robert Scozzari
www.ArtsyDesigny.com <http://bit.ly/artsydesigny-email-link>

Etsy Shop <http://ArtsyDesigny.etsy.com> • Facebook
<http://facebook.com/artsydesigny> • Twitter
<http://twitter.com/artsydesigny>

Subscribe to my mailing list
<http://artsydesigny.us5.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=8a70caa528e270f5a60b2a29b&id=eb25246a0f>

905-865-0033

P.S. In case you don't know, I'm a graphic designer and marketer with 20
years experience. If you or anyone you know could use my services, let me
know. I'd be happy to talk.

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Robert Vaessen <notime at robsworld.org>
wrote:

> All -
>
> We’ve often discussed the non-existence of time. Kind of the basis of this
> mailing list…  but, we’ve also discussed the non-existence of motion.  It’s
> the non-existence of motion that many find hard to follow.  While the
> non-existence of time seems a simple thing to grasp, many people can’t
> believe or wrap their head around the non-existence of motion.  We can’t
> see time, we can’t smell it, we can’t taste it, etc, etc.  It can’t be
> sensed, and our futile attempts to measure time are all based upon
> arbitrary measurements that we seem to change at a whim. How can time be a
> standard if it keeps changing?  If we keep redefining time (How long was a
> day in 1372?), how can it be the basis for so many different calculations
> and derived measurements? How long is one second? Let me guess, the
> definition of time is defined using time as a reference.  One second is one
> second long. Which is a division of an hour, a division of a day, etc. All
> based upon the amount of ‘time’ it takes for the earth to rotate around the
> sun?
>
> Many are willing to accept that the silliness of a self referential
> standard makes something not a standard, thus non-existent, made up, etc…
> We get it. Time doesn’t really exist, it’s a silly measurement we
> constructed so that things would make sense in the world. It’s a part of
> our attempt to order the world. To understand things that we couldn’t
> fundamentally explain. It helps explains other things that we see, but it’s
> not a ‘thing’ in it’s own right.
>
> If you accept that time isn’t a thing in its own right, that it can’t
> stand in as an actual standard, then why do some people have such a
> difficult ‘time’ with motion?
>
> According to WikiPedia: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(physics)>
> In physics, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to
> time.
>
>
> An object is observed to change it’s position; the fact that we describe
> this as changes over time is just another way that we attempt to explain or
> rationalize something that we don’t fundamentally understand.  We invented
> time as a way to explain something that we didn’t fully understand, and now
> we’re applying time to explain something else that we don’t fully
> understand.
>
> If we agree that we don’t believe in time, because it’s a
> made-up/arbitrary non-existent thing, then how can we say that motion is
> thus changes observed over a given period of time. What period of time?
>
> Here’s a thought experiment for you:
> - Let’s say you are sitting in a room and there are no clocks or watches
> with which to ‘measure’ time.  The room you’re in has a window, a chair, a
> table with a notepad and pencil. Behind you there is the door you entered
> the room through.
> - You take a seat on the chair next to the table, which is adjacent to the
> window. On the countertop is a pencil and some paper so that you can make
> notes. Through the window you can see a mostly empty room. In that room is
> a chair, a table (positioned on the floor, adjacent to the table, between
> the table and a closed door on the far side of the room). There are no
> people in that room, and you don’t see any other objects in the room.
> - You are told to measure the movement of the chair. You observe that the
> chair is pushed up to/under the table. The room is lit by some form of
> lighting that you cannot directly observe. The light in the room does not
> appear to vary in intensity and it doesn’t give off any noticeable heat.
> - As you observe the chair and table, you become hungry, thirsty and
> tired. You have no idea how much ‘time’ has passed.
> - Eventually, while you are thinking about food, you close your eyes and
> rest your head on the table.
> - When you wake up, you have no idea how long you’ve slept. You feel
> refreshed, but you’re still hungry, and now you’re very thirsty - Oh yes,
> and now you need to use the bathroom.
> - As you glance at the table and chair in the room on the other side of
> the window, you notice that the table is positioned atop the table. The
> notepad and pencil are still there, on top of the table.
>
> Has the chair moved? How can you tell? Are you able to say with certainty
> that the chair actually moved? You can say with certainty that it is
> currently positioned on top of the table, but you have no way of measuring
> or proving where it was before now. Without time as a basis with which to
> measure ‘motion’, you cannot in fact say that the chair has moved.
>
>
> Consider for the moment, which room are you in?  Could you be in the room
> you were observing, and now you might be observing the room you were in?
> You check your notepad. You didn’t write anything in it, so now you’re
> wondering whether the room is observing you…  You really need to use the
> bathroom and get something to eat, your mind is starting to play tricks on
> you.
>
>
> If motion is measured using time, and we remove time from the equation,
> can we still measure motion?  I guess we could make a grid for reference
> and note the position of something. If the reference position changes, we
> can then assume that an object has ‘moved’. Or can we? We can in fact state
> that the object is now at a different position, but how can we say where it
> ‘was’?  If we can’t prove that it was located elsewhere, how can we prove
> that it moved?
>
> Oh, but we would say that I ‘saw’ it move.  In our thought experiment, you
> didn’t see it move. For the sake of argument, lets say you didn’t fall
> asleep. Lets say you woke up and saw the chair moving. Perhaps there are
> fine cables attached to the chair that allow an unseen person to move the
> chair. You observe the chair move - It jerks back from the table, ascends
> three feet into the air, then moves over the table and descends to rest on
> the table.
>
> You observe that the chair ‘moved’.  While observing the chair move, you
> would constantly be applying an imaginary measure of ‘time’ to your
> observation. You would estimate that it took approximately five seconds for
> the chair to ‘move’ from its location behind the table to the top of the
> table.
>
> In order to make sense of the observed ‘motion’ you apply the arbitrary
> measure of ‘time’ to your observation. If you don’t actually observe the
> motion, you really have no way to ‘prove’ the motion. The chair simply is
> in one position, or the chair is in some other position.  Perhaps motion
> only occurs within view?
>
> Here’s something else to consider when it comes to time:
>
> A: Can you ‘prove’ the future?  The answer most are likely to give is ‘No’
> - The future hasn’t happened yet, so we can’t say with certainty prove that
> something will happen.
> B: Can you ‘prove’ the past?  The answer most give is ‘Yes’ - We have
> evidence of the past. We might have a photo taken three days ago (the date
> time stamped on the photo ‘proves’ that the picture was taken three days
> ago). We have fossils that prove the past existence of life forms.
>
> In the case of B: I would argue that the existence of a fossil now, only
> proves that you currently have a fossil. A photo with a ‘past’ date only
> proves that you have a photo with a ‘past’ date. It doesn’t prove the past.
> Does the fossil prove the past? If the past can be proven, where does it
> go?  What happens to the past?  As time passes what happens to the past?
> Does it evaporate? Does it simply cease to be? If the past exists, why
> can’t we go there?
>
> All these things can be described without time or motion.  If all of
> reality is static, unmoving and unchanging.  Things exist in various
> possible states. All the possible states of matter coexist within a
> simultaneous now.
>
> If you will yourself to experience a different matter state - Like the one
> where I’ve already sent this email, then it may occur. Provided it exists
> within the realm of possible* matter states *(*Possible given the limited
> experiential set of nodes which I am able to access)*.
>
> Things to think about.
>
> - Robert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> akinetochronism mailing list
> To post message: akinetochronism at robsworld.org
> To unsubscribe: akinetochronism-unsubscribe at robsworld.org
> List information:
> http://robsworld.org/mailman/listinfo/akinetochronism_robsworld.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://robsworld.org/pipermail/akinetochronism_robsworld.org/attachments/20150913/6ecb4e6e/attachment-0002.html>