Why does/would it require time in order to observer a
"timeless" thing? It seems like cheating to me.
Scott
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, rwas rwas wrote:
>
> > However, I cannot help but feel that consciousness
> >isn't an instantaneous thing. Vague, I know, but it
> >does seem to be a process. Only when OM's are linked
> >together do they make "sense". I think perhaps we
> >don't need to throw out time; a Many Worlds type
> >static universe is, perhaps, simpler to implement
> than >the minds it contains.
>
> I thought about this the other day. How does one
> express in a timeless existence. This is what I've
> come up with...
>
> Our experiences are best described as frames. Outside
> of these frames there is no time. What delineates
> these frames is arbitrary. There can be frames within
> frames. We use a kind of energy to pass from one frame
> to the next. Each frame forms a kind of epoch. Our
> decisions determine whether we cross one frame
> boundary and which boundary we cross at. So our lives
> might be described as chains of expression linked at
> epoch boundaries.
>
> Now within each frame, we perceive time. I say we
> perceive it, but it does not exist. It is simply an
> expression method for those not ready for anything
> else. Each time stamp we place on a thought or
> instant, is a sub-frame. We form little epoch's within
> major epochs. These are delineated by are attempts to
> correlate our thoughts with time. Without the intent
> to correlate conscious experience with time, no
> temporally classified epoch is formed. We might be
> forced into a state where external experiences impose
> temporal partitioning, ie., watching a car go by or,
> some bodily awareness. But I asert that this is simply
> the formation of micro-frames or epochs bounded by our
> brain's ability to partition or sample the experience.
>
> For someone standing outside your epoch/frame, they
> would see your expressions anyway they chose to. They
> might see you temporally expressing, if they constrain
> their thoughts to temporal laws. They may simply see
> all possibilities that lay before you constrained by
> qualities they choose. The important thing to note is
> that they make decisions and form frames based on
> those decisions too. So in observing you, they change
> as well.
>
> If one thinks about the possibilities of this model,
> it's staggering. This means people could learn to form
> epochs around other instantiations or entities and
> completely master the interactions between you and
> them. An example might be whether you see a car in
> time not to be run over. In another expression, you
> are conscious of the car before the moment arrives,
> even before the day or month arrives...
>
> >From a mystic standpoint, this makes sense. From my
> studies I am told no time exists on the invisible
> (non-physical world). This bugged me because I could
> not conceive of how one would express. This model
> seems to satisfy the issue for me.
>
> It also explains experiences I have had in the past.
> This entails my being conscious in two separate times
> simultaneously. I've experienced these co-events with
> separations in months. The most recent was separated
> by over 20 years. One could say I was simply
> adequately aware of the memories involving
> consciousness in two operate times. I cannot argue
> against this except to say that I doubt it's
> physically possible for the human brain to record
> experiences so completely as to support such a
> phenomenon.
>
>
> Robert W.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
>
Received on Sun Apr 01 2001 - 12:55:13 PDT