We are space exploring Time. We explore Time through direct participatory experience. Time produces the experience of loss. Without loss there would be no pain, Without pain there would be no suffering. We could experience no wounds. No body damage. No emotional damage.
Time creates limitations. We choose to experience Time. We can do nothing in this dimension that prevents us from experiencing Time. At this level of experiencing time, we experience it as a one-way function. We will always have the opportunity to experience the consequences of our actions.
We come from beyond time. We crave the everlasting, because we come from outside of time. Nothing lasts forever inside of time. All forms are temporary. Only the eternal process of transformation continues. Clinging to any one form leads to loss, then pain, then sorrow. Avoid clinging to any temporary form.
Upon death we return beyond time, to eternity. Death functions as our birth to eternity. Just as human birth functions as our death to eternity.
We seek often to recreate the everlasting here within the bounds of time. The Wheel of Time will continue to spin. Nothing here lasts forever.
We can point towards eternity, but only in the space of our own minds can we have an experience of eternity, while here in this dimension of time.
I would say, from a non-scientific perspective (which seems to be what we are going on here) time is simply a label used to describe the sequential nature of events.
Blaming ‘time’ for lifes ills seems a bit off to me…
Well, yes.
Any existance ‘free’ of time or ‘beyond’ time is the realm of fantasy-fiction
I deal in observable reality.
So…yes.
…sequential nature of events it is.
now if you want to delve into the ‘scientific’ concept of space-time, that is a whole other matter.
I put this thought in the religion category as it pays attention to ideas that might get considered as fantasy or fiction.
As a person who focuses his attention on the observable I have a question for you: What in the observable gives evidence of the non-existence of the unobservable?
It seems a bold assumption to suggest that only that which we, through our sensory organs and the tools that we have developed to translate information into that which we can observe with our sensory organs, makes up the totality of what qualifies as real.
Focusing on the observable seems practical, and there is a high utility to practicality. That utility is not exhaustive. Practicality may not be the most useful focus in all situations.
The existence of a space beyond time is a myth. With all of the flaws and the beauty of any other myth… It marks us as non-native to this dimension of spacetime. We come from beyond this dimension. So this experience does not fit us quite right. Yet our being here gives us an opportunity to experience what we couldn’t experience outside of this dimension.
Rather like when we go to an amusement park to have experiences we couldn’t have outside of the amusement park. This dimension functions as an amusement part for pure space. The pure space, of which we are each a part. Our true essence is of timeless space. Infinite and everlasting. We are on vacation here in this dimension.
Beyond time, there are no limits, no loss, no pain, no suffering.
But it might be boring there in Eternity, so we come here to experience limits. Time itself is the limit of all things in this dimension.
Thats not the way logical thinking works, sir. You have it backwards.
You seem to think something is credible until proven otherwise. This type of thinking is purely fallicious.
Something need’s evidence to gain credibility. Until such a time as something can be supported by a rational theory it is fiction and aside from entertainment value, quite worthless.
No personal offense intended, of course.
If you were to present a similar theory and present some sort of data to support it, I would react differently.
(Please don’t call me sir. I would rather play the part of the rebel instead of the authority figure.)
I noticed that you didn’t answer the question.
Nothing in the observable gives evidence of the non-existence of the unobservable.
When it comes to the unobservable you either have faith it does exist, or you have faith it does not exist. Nobody can prove or disprove anything about the unobservable.
You choose to have faith that nothing exists beyond the observable. I choose to have faith that something exists beyond the observable.
Neither of us can prove anything about our faith.
On a different matter there is the questions of values.
So something only has value if supported by a rational theory? Do you perhaps mean something only has value if supported by empirical evidence? Or else what do you qualify as a “rational theory?”
Otherwise something can only have entertainment value? Do any other values exist for something?
Incorrect.
I simply realize that our methods of ‘observing’ are ever developing. I do not have ‘faith’ there is nothing beyond what we currently know and can observe.
What we know and can observe expands every day.
Yes.
Yes.
A well-substantiated explanation for a given phenomenon incorporating facts/laws and tested hypotheses.
I agree with you, sir. What we know and can observe increases every day.
Now I would ask for clarification. First you agree that something only has value if supported by a rational theory. Then you state that something can have subjective values that we assign ourselves.
So do you mean to say that something only has OBJECTIVE value if it is supported by a rational theory and/or empirical evidence?