Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

James Bath · Jan 30, 2004, 10:19 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (orgaelin,)
Am I not right in thinking that action/reaction are not the same as cause/effect?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I think they are the same. But they are not bound by what we think of as time. They are bound by relationship. Time doesn't even have to come into the equation. And I don't think it should, unless it's convenient to use that... illusion.

orgaelin · Jan 30, 2004, 11:33 am

I'm looking through your site at the moment James, though I should say looking 'down' as it's one hell of a long page!

You said in it:

"['For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'] implies cause and effect, which in turn implies a separation in time between the cause and the effect, the action and the reaction. But in truth there is no separation between them. They are the same, unified phenomenon. Not a plural but a singular. Forces occur only in pairs. Neither the action nor the (so-called) reaction can exist without the other, and they happen at the same time"

Ah, but no two things can happen at the same time. Imagine a hand moving around a clock. As it gets to twelve there is a moment of transition where it must go from one side of the clock to the next. Effectively what you are saying is that second 59 happens at the same 'time' as second 01.

Could it not be that the very end of second 59 is immediately preceeding the very beginning second 01, or rather, that the very final moment of some cause is immediately before the effect thereof. There would still be no passage of time in between, so one could argue that in the moment of contact they were both in the same moment, but that depends on the length of moments you're measuring!

For me, cause and effect includes much more than action/reaction. a/r is physics, but c&e could be like one person causing another to be upset. That's how I see it anywho.

I love what you have to say about ideas taking shape across time like a single mind. Normally when people speak of 'collective consciousness' it is a 'present moment' thing. I've never thought of it happening over hundreds if not thousands of years. That's a wonderful idea.

There's an element of, if you don't mind my saying so, 'hippy' in your ideas. That's meant only as an observation though. The story about the animals watching you play guitar says it all!

James Bath · Jan 30, 2004, 03:14 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (orgaelin,)
I'm looking through your site at the moment James, though I should say looking 'down' as it's one hell of a long page!

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yea, I need to work with that site some day, take down some old articles and put up some new ones... but anyway let me try to express my ideas of time in this way:

When you divide time into moments, you no longer have “time” but “times” (plural). If we decide a moment is, say, one second long, there would be 86,400 different moments or different “one-second-long times” making up a single day.

Wait! This is not sophistry.

On the other hand, if time is one cohesive whole, like space is alleged to be, it cannot be divided into parts. To divide it, you would have to tear time into 3 separate realities at least – those being past, present, and future.

But let’s say we did this. Let’s say there really is a past, present, and future.

To move from past to present to future it would then become necessary for us to jump outside of time into a void that separates the past from the present and the present from the future. In this case, we not only visit 3 different time realities but visit timeless intervals as well.

If time is indeed a cohesive whole, where one moment is actually seamlessly connected with the next, then the past, present and future are only where we arbitrarily point our attention to onto the field of time. Furthermore, this unity of time would be analogous to a platform upon which all events could be arranged and laid out. To see it this way, one must move one’s attention in a way similar to the way he does when making the right-angle movement away and into the third dimension to get a broad view of the flat second dimension.

To define time in this way validates the concept of time by presenting it more like a spacial dimension than a flowing river. But the way it is usually defined in society is invalid and even dangerous. The usual erroneous definition of time is one of the main reasons we have stress-related diseases such as hypertension, strokes, and heart attacks.

To express events in terms of time is a mental organization of the events for purposes of thinking and communicating ideas. It is a useful tool, just as imaginary numbers are useful tools in mathematics. But both are invented fictions for convenience. The reason we think one thing comes after the other is that we have become hypnotized by our own tools. We think in terms of a river of time – not in terms of relationships and patterns. Over generations and millennia, most of us have come to think that the time-fiction is reality.

Just because seeing events in terms of time is the only way most of us know how to look at the world, it doesn’t mean it is the only way to look at the world. It is obviously of much importance in busy, overly-organized Western society. Not so important on a tropical island to a barefoot millionaire lounging on a beach and sipping refreshment from a coconut shell.

orgaelin · Jan 31, 2004, 03:39 am

The wife has me decorating all day today so I'm not going to get the time I need to write you a worthy response!

I am looking forward, however, to what I forsee to be some very interesting conversations between the two of us concerning the nature of time, but also the nature of infinity too.

Probably tomorrow though :(

James Bath · Jan 31, 2004, 10:14 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (orgaelin,)
The wife has me decorating all day today so I'm not going to get the time I need to write you a worthy response!

I am looking forward, however, to what I forsee to be some very interesting conversations between the two of us concerning the nature of time, but also the nature of infinity too.

Probably tomorrow though :(<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I'm looking forward to it, too. See you soon.

shunyadragon · Jan 31, 2004, 07:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
Is that a bit like going back into and pushing yourself into the time machine?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

not at all...

according to kant, the human mind creates time and space

there is still no need for a prime mover<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

'According to Kant???

I do not believe Kant. The statement 'the human mind creates time in space.' is a premise I don't accept. The 'need' for a prime mover is reaching beyond the known and a statement of faith. For those who believe in God the 'need' is there. For those who don't there is no 'need'.

It is possible that cause and effect are the result of the greater laws of existence and effect is not dependent on cause.

Assumptions are big part of why we disagree, but when you are in the middle of two unknowns, assumptions are the basis of what people believe.

Impenitent · Feb 1, 2004, 12:19 am

Quote:

Quote by: shunyadragon,

not at all...

according to kant, the human mind creates time and space

there is still no need for a prime mover

'According to Kant???

I do not believe Kant. The statement 'the human mind creates time in space.' is a premise I don't accept. The 'need' for a prime mover is reaching beyond the known and a statement of faith. For those who believe in God the 'need' is there. For those who don't there is no 'need'.

It is possible that cause and effect are the result of the greater laws of existence and effect is not dependent on cause.

Assumptions are big part of why we disagree, but when you are in the middle of two unknowns, assumptions are the basis of what people believe.[/quote]

1. I don't think Kant was totally correct either, but that is his premise... and I have yet to see it effectively refuted (time and space are constructs of the human mind as irremovable goggles of perception) the need for a prime mover is the same as the need for cause and effect...

2. Hume showed how human logic cannot make any claims to cause and effect because cause and effect predictions are based on a fallacy... 'greater laws' of existence? my god er 'greater law' says you are wrong...

3. assumption is the mother of all fuck ups

shunyadragon · Feb 1, 2004, 04:51 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)

not at all...

according to kant, the human mind creates time and space

there is still no need for a prime mover

'According to Kant???

I do not believe Kant. The statement 'the human mind creates time in space.' is a premise I don't accept. The 'need' for a prime mover is reaching beyond the known and a statement of faith. For those who believe in God the 'need' is there. For those who don't there is no 'need'.

It is possible that cause and effect are the result of the greater laws of existence and effect is not dependent on cause.

Assumptions are big part of why we disagree, but when you are in the middle of two unknowns, assumptions are the basis of what people believe.

1. I don't think Kant was totally correct either, but that is his premise... and I have yet to see it effectively refuted (time and space are constructs of the human mind as irremovable goggles of perception) the need for a prime mover is the same as the need for cause and effect...

2. Hume showed how human logic cannot make any claims to cause and effect because cause and effect predictions are based on a fallacy... 'greater laws' of existence? my god er 'greater law' says you are wrong...

3. assumption is the mother of all fuck ups<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Assumptions like these basically cannot be refuted, simply because they are assumptions of the intangible nature of existence beyond cause and effect and the beginning of time and space.

With the assumption that time, space, and cause and effect are real. because we have no tangible evidence on the contrary. Therefore every effect must have a cause. With these assumptions I will assume that there has to be a source for existence to be real. But then again I must conclude if my assumptions apply in all cases, there must be source for the source ad infinitem.

I prefer the assumption that cause and effect are a product of the greater laws of existence that we postulate as the laws of nature. In this way cause and effect is product of the nature of existence and does not need a cause.

But, I do believe there is a cause and existence is very real. If existence is an illusion, it is a very beautiful, awful, terrible, tragic, wonderful, great, painful, pleasurable, fantasic picture show someone else is watching.

Your assumption #3 sums it up well.

Feb 10, 2004, 05:28 pm

Assumptions wouldn't lead you to believe there is space or time, it would lead you to believe there isn't. We have set boundaries on both and have found dozens of ways to determine which way is correct. I believe very soon we will find out how correct Einstein's Theory of Relativity is. It takes a great thinker to give a good explanation of time and space. Paul Davies(I believe thats his name) wrote a really good book on the subject. Cause and effect have been misleading to us. Let that sink in and I'll post something else later. Don't throw stupid crap at me, believe me I've heard it all, give me a well thought out discussion.

Jan 30, 2004, 10:19 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
James Bath Molten Ash Posts: 25	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (orgaelin,) Am I not right in thinking that action/reaction are not the same as cause/effect?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think they are the same. But they are not bound by what we think of as time. They are bound by relationship. Time doesn't even have to come into the equation. And I don't think it should, unless it's convenient to use that... illusion. My Webpage

Jan 30, 2004, 11:33 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
orgaelin Igneous Magma Location: Midlands UK Posts: 704	I'm looking through your site at the moment James, though I should say looking 'down' as it's one hell of a long page! You said in it: "['For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'] implies cause and effect, which in turn implies a separation in time between the cause and the effect, the action and the reaction. But in truth there is no separation between them. They are the same, unified phenomenon. Not a plural but a singular. Forces occur only in pairs. Neither the action nor the (so-called) reaction can exist without the other, and they happen at the same time" Ah, but no two things can happen at the same time. Imagine a hand moving around a clock. As it gets to twelve there is a moment of transition where it must go from one side of the clock to the next. Effectively what you are saying is that second 59 happens at the same 'time' as second 01. Could it not be that the very end of second 59 is immediately preceeding the very beginning second 01, or rather, that the very final moment of some cause is immediately before the effect thereof. There would still be no passage of time in between, so one could argue that in the moment of contact they were both in the same moment, but that depends on the length of moments you're measuring! For me, cause and effect includes much more than action/reaction. a/r is physics, but c&e could be like one person causing another to be upset. That's how I see it anywho. I love what you have to say about ideas taking shape across time like a single mind. Normally when people speak of 'collective consciousness' it is a 'present moment' thing. I've never thought of it happening over hundreds if not thousands of years. That's a wonderful idea. There's an element of, if you don't mind my saying so, 'hippy' in your ideas. That's meant only as an observation though. The story about the animals watching you play guitar says it all! "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Jan 30, 2004, 03:14 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
James Bath Molten Ash Posts: 25	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (orgaelin,) I'm looking through your site at the moment James, though I should say looking 'down' as it's one hell of a long page! <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yea, I need to work with that site some day, take down some old articles and put up some new ones... but anyway let me try to express my ideas of time in this way: When you divide time into moments, you no longer have “time” but “times” (plural). If we decide a moment is, say, one second long, there would be 86,400 different moments or different “one-second-long times” making up a single day. Wait! This is not sophistry. On the other hand, if time is one cohesive whole, like space is alleged to be, it cannot be divided into parts. To divide it, you would have to tear time into 3 separate realities at least – those being past, present, and future. But let’s say we did this. Let’s say there really is a past, present, and future. To move from past to present to future it would then become necessary for us to jump outside of time into a void that separates the past from the present and the present from the future. In this case, we not only visit 3 different time realities but visit timeless intervals as well. If time is indeed a cohesive whole, where one moment is actually seamlessly connected with the next, then the past, present and future are only where we arbitrarily point our attention to onto the field of time. Furthermore, this unity of time would be analogous to a platform upon which all events could be arranged and laid out. To see it this way, one must move one’s attention in a way similar to the way he does when making the right-angle movement away and into the third dimension to get a broad view of the flat second dimension. To define time in this way validates the concept of time by presenting it more like a spacial dimension than a flowing river. But the way it is usually defined in society is invalid and even dangerous. The usual erroneous definition of time is one of the main reasons we have stress-related diseases such as hypertension, strokes, and heart attacks. To express events in terms of time is a mental organization of the events for purposes of thinking and communicating ideas. It is a useful tool, just as imaginary numbers are useful tools in mathematics. But both are invented fictions for convenience. The reason we think one thing comes after the other is that we have become hypnotized by our own tools. We think in terms of a river of time – not in terms of relationships and patterns. Over generations and millennia, most of us have come to think that the time-fiction is reality. Just because seeing events in terms of time is the only way most of us know how to look at the world, it doesn’t mean it is the only way to look at the world. It is obviously of much importance in busy, overly-organized Western society. Not so important on a tropical island to a barefoot millionaire lounging on a beach and sipping refreshment from a coconut shell. My Webpage

Jan 31, 2004, 03:39 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
orgaelin Igneous Magma Location: Midlands UK Posts: 704	The wife has me decorating all day today so I'm not going to get the time I need to write you a worthy response! I am looking forward, however, to what I forsee to be some very interesting conversations between the two of us concerning the nature of time, but also the nature of infinity too. Probably tomorrow though :( "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Jan 31, 2004, 10:14 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
James Bath Molten Ash Posts: 25	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (orgaelin,) The wife has me decorating all day today so I'm not going to get the time I need to write you a worthy response! I am looking forward, however, to what I forsee to be some very interesting conversations between the two of us concerning the nature of time, but also the nature of infinity too. Probably tomorrow though :(<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm looking forward to it, too. See you soon. My Webpage

Jan 31, 2004, 07:20 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) Is that a bit like going back into and pushing yourself into the time machine?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> not at all... according to kant, the human mind creates time and space there is still no need for a prime mover<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 'According to Kant??? I do not believe Kant. The statement 'the human mind creates time in space.' is a premise I don't accept. The 'need' for a prime mover is reaching beyond the known and a statement of faith. For those who believe in God the 'need' is there. For those who don't there is no 'need'. It is possible that cause and effect are the result of the greater laws of existence and effect is not dependent on cause. Assumptions are big part of why we disagree, but when you are in the middle of two unknowns, assumptions are the basis of what people believe. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 1, 2004, 04:51 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) not at all... according to kant, the human mind creates time and space there is still no need for a prime mover 'According to Kant??? I do not believe Kant. The statement 'the human mind creates time in space.' is a premise I don't accept. The 'need' for a prime mover is reaching beyond the known and a statement of faith. For those who believe in God the 'need' is there. For those who don't there is no 'need'. It is possible that cause and effect are the result of the greater laws of existence and effect is not dependent on cause. Assumptions are big part of why we disagree, but when you are in the middle of two unknowns, assumptions are the basis of what people believe. 1. I don't think Kant was totally correct either, but that is his premise... and I have yet to see it effectively refuted (time and space are constructs of the human mind as irremovable goggles of perception) the need for a prime mover is the same as the need for cause and effect... 2. Hume showed how human logic cannot make any claims to cause and effect because cause and effect predictions are based on a fallacy... 'greater laws' of existence? my god er 'greater law' says you are wrong... 3. assumption is the mother of all fuck ups<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Assumptions like these basically cannot be refuted, simply because they are assumptions of the intangible nature of existence beyond cause and effect and the beginning of time and space. With the assumption that time, space, and cause and effect are real. because we have no tangible evidence on the contrary. Therefore every effect must have a cause. With these assumptions I will assume that there has to be a source for existence to be real. But then again I must conclude if my assumptions apply in all cases, there must be source for the source ad infinitem. I prefer the assumption that cause and effect are a product of the greater laws of existence that we postulate as the laws of nature. In this way cause and effect is product of the nature of existence and does not need a cause. But, I do believe there is a cause and existence is very real. If existence is an illusion, it is a very beautiful, awful, terrible, tragic, wonderful, great, painful, pleasurable, fantasic picture show someone else is watching. Your assumption #3 sums it up well. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 10, 2004, 05:28 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
theophysics Guest Posts: n/a	Assumptions wouldn't lead you to believe there is space or time, it would lead you to believe there isn't. We have set boundaries on both and have found dozens of ways to determine which way is correct. I believe very soon we will find out how correct Einstein's Theory of Relativity is. It takes a great thinker to give a good explanation of time and space. Paul Davies(I believe thats his name) wrote a really good book on the subject. Cause and effect have been misleading to us. Let that sink in and I'll post something else later. Don't throw stupid crap at me, believe me I've heard it all, give me a well thought out discussion.