Firstly, I do not claim to really know what I'm talking about. These are just some thoughts that have occurred to me and have been floating around ("on my mind") awhile that I wanted to ask about since I find the topic interesting.
"There is no time." Time is an illusion, or so the Cassiopaeans say, that facilitates the lessons available to us at our level. As I understand it, the C's have indicated that a lot of inquiry into the "nature of time" is fruitless since time as we perceive it does not exist objectively.
A puzzle this suggested to me is, "How can free will exist if there is no time?" But I figure this is because of an initial assumption that "no time" equals "frozen". The C's did indicate at one point that there is something objective that could be called "time", but this is not what humans perceive. I don't plan on trying to tackle that, but maybe some things can be known about our illusory time, if it is so. I also remember a session transcript where Laura and others were discussing, and they said they didn't believe in time. It was said that one person wore a watch out of consideration for others, who DID believe in time. This puzzled me and piqued my curiosity, got me thinking.
My thought is that time may not be real, but energy is, and we know that energy flows in cycles. Indeed, we measure time via observable cycles (such as day/night), but maybe this is where the illusion lies, or part of it? After all, it's not really "time" that matters, but what HAPPENS during that "time", right? The flow of energy. The flow of energy is not determined by time; this is backward thinking. Our perception of time is based on the flow of energy in cycles. We created clocks to "measure time", but do they really measure anything? They just move in a mechanical cycle that closely approximates the cycle of the Earth's rotation. Does this mean that the Earth's rotation also "measures time"? It seems sort of silly to me when put that way.
There are cycles everywhere, of all sorts of kinds; some are low energy, others high energy, some are very regular and others are irregular,chaotic, or unstable, and they are all connected and embedded in one another! The idea of wavelength comes to mind; the rotation of the Earth and the rotation of a spinning top on my table may have a particular relationship; a ratio of "rotational wavelength" (?), i.e. at its current rate the top could spin so many million times per rotation of the earth. But there is something interesting here; the ratio changes as the top slows down and eventually stops (loses its energy and dissolves its cycle or rotation). So if you are measuring time based on the spinning of that top, it will seem like everything else keeps speeding up and eventually blurs into one eternal moment when the top stops - at least until you set the top spinning again. The same is true of the earth; if it's rotation changed, the day/night cycle would change, and our measurement of time would change.
But in reality it isn't just Earth's rotation that we measure by, but also Earth's revolution around the Sun, the cycles of the moon and the other planets, the speed at which sand pours through an hourglass, the rate of atomic decay or radioactive materials, etc. So we have lots of corroborating evidence, right? But what if one of those cycles were to go out of sync with the rest? What if Earth's rotation slowed down ever so slightly? Our days would be longer, and it would lower the centrifugal force slightly, so maybe sand would pour through an hourglass slightly faster near the equator (I'm not sure). Anyways, but since we want "time" to be absolute, what do we do? We can slow our clocks to match the Earth's new speed, or we can continue to keep time based on the movements of the moon and other planets, but in any case, the lunar predictions on our calendars would be wrong, and if we didn't change the speed of clocks they would go out of sync with the day/night cycle. But what if everything changed? All of the planets and moons shift orbits and rotation slightly, and earth's gravity changes slightly; maybe some external force is influencing the solar system. Let's assume we survive this, against all odds, and everything continues in new, stable cycles.
Now how do we measure time? Many of the things we used to measure time have changed!
In other words, "time" is a moving target. If we are using one cycle to measure time, but energy flows out of that cycle and into another, we lose all sense of orientation. But if our eye is on the energy, we won't be disoriented, or at least not as much, right? In the example above, it makes much more sense to wonder WHAT is causing the whole solar system to change than how much "time" is in the new day and night cycle! So it is apparent that our notion of time is based on predictability, and when that breaks down "time" loses its meaning. So when we take time as an absolute, we are tacitly assuming that "nothing will change". We are anticipating.
Repeating my earlier phrase; it's not "time" that matters, but what HAPPENS during that "time". Energy moves in complex ways. A person can have an "uneventful" life for months, and then in the space of five minutes something happens that changes the course of their life drastically and permanently. If you plan on getting something done, you apply energy towards it, and based on how the energy flows, it will take a certain amount of time relative to something else, and it is far from absolute. A healthy person will be able to hold, exert, and direct energy within greater capacities than an unhealthy person.
Energy flows through us constantly. We breathe air; metabolize food which is then turned into bodily substances, electricity, movement, and heat; and we absorb, process, store, and communicate information. Other forces flow through us via our environment as well, such as momentum we gain while riding in a vehicle or being shoved by someone, numerous chemical interactions, electromagnetic effects, and who knows what else. And energy flows at varying rates and in varying amounts. If we get too little of energy in certain forms, we die, and the same if we get too much. Too little, too much, the wrong kind, or the wrong application of food, air, or even information can kill us. And eventually the body dies.
So it is not "how much time we have" that matters, or "how long we live". It is "how the energy flows" that counts, and this depends on our choices. The C's quote comes to mind: "It's not where you are, it's who you are and what you see." Ultimately it seems that our perception of "time" is a byproduct of the way energy flows through us. Sometimes time seems to pass quickly, sometimes slowly; sometimes we can accomplish much in a short period, other times it seems to take us "forever". And we regularly "lose time" when we sleep or dissociate.
So a fixation on time as something real seems to indicate anticipation of predictability; a desire for control. Treating time as absolute means treating change as nonexistent or inconsequential. So it seems like an inherently anti-cataclysmic mindset (not believing in possible cataclysms). It definitely makes me think of the attitudes and rigidity of all the scientific fields like Physics, and astronomical theory. The equations assume time as an absolute, but since the flow of energy is uncertain, and time is measured based on the flow of energy, time is uncertain as well. So now maybe I understand better why Ark was/is (?) trying to develop equations without the time variable.
And maybe it also helps me understand these "facts" the C's gave:
And that's all folks! The length of this is unexpected; I hope no one minds that it turned partly into a sort of brainstorming session.
"There is no time." Time is an illusion, or so the Cassiopaeans say, that facilitates the lessons available to us at our level. As I understand it, the C's have indicated that a lot of inquiry into the "nature of time" is fruitless since time as we perceive it does not exist objectively.
A puzzle this suggested to me is, "How can free will exist if there is no time?" But I figure this is because of an initial assumption that "no time" equals "frozen". The C's did indicate at one point that there is something objective that could be called "time", but this is not what humans perceive. I don't plan on trying to tackle that, but maybe some things can be known about our illusory time, if it is so. I also remember a session transcript where Laura and others were discussing, and they said they didn't believe in time. It was said that one person wore a watch out of consideration for others, who DID believe in time. This puzzled me and piqued my curiosity, got me thinking.
My thought is that time may not be real, but energy is, and we know that energy flows in cycles. Indeed, we measure time via observable cycles (such as day/night), but maybe this is where the illusion lies, or part of it? After all, it's not really "time" that matters, but what HAPPENS during that "time", right? The flow of energy. The flow of energy is not determined by time; this is backward thinking. Our perception of time is based on the flow of energy in cycles. We created clocks to "measure time", but do they really measure anything? They just move in a mechanical cycle that closely approximates the cycle of the Earth's rotation. Does this mean that the Earth's rotation also "measures time"? It seems sort of silly to me when put that way.
There are cycles everywhere, of all sorts of kinds; some are low energy, others high energy, some are very regular and others are irregular,chaotic, or unstable, and they are all connected and embedded in one another! The idea of wavelength comes to mind; the rotation of the Earth and the rotation of a spinning top on my table may have a particular relationship; a ratio of "rotational wavelength" (?), i.e. at its current rate the top could spin so many million times per rotation of the earth. But there is something interesting here; the ratio changes as the top slows down and eventually stops (loses its energy and dissolves its cycle or rotation). So if you are measuring time based on the spinning of that top, it will seem like everything else keeps speeding up and eventually blurs into one eternal moment when the top stops - at least until you set the top spinning again. The same is true of the earth; if it's rotation changed, the day/night cycle would change, and our measurement of time would change.
But in reality it isn't just Earth's rotation that we measure by, but also Earth's revolution around the Sun, the cycles of the moon and the other planets, the speed at which sand pours through an hourglass, the rate of atomic decay or radioactive materials, etc. So we have lots of corroborating evidence, right? But what if one of those cycles were to go out of sync with the rest? What if Earth's rotation slowed down ever so slightly? Our days would be longer, and it would lower the centrifugal force slightly, so maybe sand would pour through an hourglass slightly faster near the equator (I'm not sure). Anyways, but since we want "time" to be absolute, what do we do? We can slow our clocks to match the Earth's new speed, or we can continue to keep time based on the movements of the moon and other planets, but in any case, the lunar predictions on our calendars would be wrong, and if we didn't change the speed of clocks they would go out of sync with the day/night cycle. But what if everything changed? All of the planets and moons shift orbits and rotation slightly, and earth's gravity changes slightly; maybe some external force is influencing the solar system. Let's assume we survive this, against all odds, and everything continues in new, stable cycles.
Now how do we measure time? Many of the things we used to measure time have changed!In other words, "time" is a moving target. If we are using one cycle to measure time, but energy flows out of that cycle and into another, we lose all sense of orientation. But if our eye is on the energy, we won't be disoriented, or at least not as much, right? In the example above, it makes much more sense to wonder WHAT is causing the whole solar system to change than how much "time" is in the new day and night cycle! So it is apparent that our notion of time is based on predictability, and when that breaks down "time" loses its meaning. So when we take time as an absolute, we are tacitly assuming that "nothing will change". We are anticipating.
Repeating my earlier phrase; it's not "time" that matters, but what HAPPENS during that "time". Energy moves in complex ways. A person can have an "uneventful" life for months, and then in the space of five minutes something happens that changes the course of their life drastically and permanently. If you plan on getting something done, you apply energy towards it, and based on how the energy flows, it will take a certain amount of time relative to something else, and it is far from absolute. A healthy person will be able to hold, exert, and direct energy within greater capacities than an unhealthy person.
Energy flows through us constantly. We breathe air; metabolize food which is then turned into bodily substances, electricity, movement, and heat; and we absorb, process, store, and communicate information. Other forces flow through us via our environment as well, such as momentum we gain while riding in a vehicle or being shoved by someone, numerous chemical interactions, electromagnetic effects, and who knows what else. And energy flows at varying rates and in varying amounts. If we get too little of energy in certain forms, we die, and the same if we get too much. Too little, too much, the wrong kind, or the wrong application of food, air, or even information can kill us. And eventually the body dies.
So it is not "how much time we have" that matters, or "how long we live". It is "how the energy flows" that counts, and this depends on our choices. The C's quote comes to mind: "It's not where you are, it's who you are and what you see." Ultimately it seems that our perception of "time" is a byproduct of the way energy flows through us. Sometimes time seems to pass quickly, sometimes slowly; sometimes we can accomplish much in a short period, other times it seems to take us "forever". And we regularly "lose time" when we sleep or dissociate.
So a fixation on time as something real seems to indicate anticipation of predictability; a desire for control. Treating time as absolute means treating change as nonexistent or inconsequential. So it seems like an inherently anti-cataclysmic mindset (not believing in possible cataclysms). It definitely makes me think of the attitudes and rigidity of all the scientific fields like Physics, and astronomical theory. The equations assume time as an absolute, but since the flow of energy is uncertain, and time is measured based on the flow of energy, time is uncertain as well. So now maybe I understand better why Ark was/is (?) trying to develop equations without the time variable.
And maybe it also helps me understand these "facts" the C's gave:
And that's all folks! The length of this is unexpected; I hope no one minds that it turned partly into a sort of brainstorming session.
