I Pit Time

[Arwin]

I Pit Time.

Why?

I Pit Time because it fools people and makes them believe it means something more than a centimeter-scale on a ruler.

Time, you are nothing but a convenience, an abstract tool, and it is time someone put you in your place.

Time, you don't exist. You aren't even a concept. We use you, because we want to compare the movement of objects relative to one another. It is this movement we measure, and we use you as a vulgar little scale. Whenever we need you, we pick a steady rhythm from nature or create one of our own, a fixed pace, and use it as a metronome against which we measure the (other) notes of existence.

If we so desire. Because without the metronome -- in other words, without you, oh Time, life goes on just the same.

And yet, like the Emperor's new clothes, you manage to obscure movement, because you've convinced people that they want to see you.

Time, I pity your victims, and I pit you.

You pompous, self-aggrandizing piece of shit. May the day come soon that people see you for what you really are. May the day come soon that people will again say things like "My, dear Emperor, I like the new look! And by the way, are you a grower or ... "

Until that day comes, I will make sure people will see you for the humble convenience that you really are, wherever and whenever I can.

A.

[recurriman]

ummm....okay.

[SentientMeat]

Today, 9:28AM ... Time, you don't exist.It's one thing to say that a rainbow is an optical illusion, and another to say that rainbows don't exist. There clearly is some notional axis along which different configurations of the universe can be placed. Do length, breadth and depth not exist either?

[SpaceDog]

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I like your rant, it has a quality I can't quite put my finger on (a timeless quality?) but as SentientMeat says time exists at least in some form.

Now, if you're pitting the measurement of time, and the random meaning attached to arbitary periods in that measurement system then yeah, I get the point and I agree.

If you're pitting the passage of time, the crumbling of ancient monuments, the wrinkling of young skin, and the cooling of my coffee then I get that too.

Just pitting 'time' as a non-existant entity. That's a bit odd.

SD

For instance, as I submit this, it's almost lunchtime.

[Fear Itself]

I wanted to read this rant, but that would take time, which doesn't exist. Damn you, Arwin!

[Roland Orzabal]

If you're going to rant against nonexistant conceptual entities created by man for lack of any better ideas, I recommend starting with money. That one's waaaaaaay more fucked up.

[Uvula Donor]

No, Roland, they're the same thing. You know, "Time is money".

[Arwin]

It's one thing to say that a rainbow is an optical illusion, and another to say that rainbows don't exist. There clearly is some notional axis along which different configurations of the universe can be placed. Do length, breadth and depth not exist either?

Length, breadth, depth and movement. It's usually when we substitute movement for time that the trouble begins and we get stuff like time travelling backwards, time bending, and so on. Time doesn't measure any of these four, but it quantifies the last, movement, in terms of speed.

Think of an object in a void. This object has dimensions, but we cannot see how big it is because there is nothing to compare it to. We'd need to be able to put a ruler next to it. We do know that it has dimensions, however, because it is composed of mass that extends in multiple dimensions. We cannot see how far away from us it is because there is nothing to compare it to. We cannot see if it moves because there is nothing it can move to or from.

Now consider two objects, rotating each other. We can see how big the objects are relative to each other. We can see if they move closer or farther, relative to each other. We can see that they move, because they move relative to each other.

But where does time come in, in the two object (very abstract) picture? It doesn't. We can't measure the movement itself, because we need secondary movement to compare it to. What we then compare, is movement relative to other movement. That allows us to say something about the speed of movement, of one pair of objects relative to the other pair.

You've said it yourself. Notional axis. In other words, a ruler, measuring movement against a (man-)defined regular other movement (currently the atomic clock being the most popular one).

But my point is that people forget what it really means. They no longer realise that when they say "Time's change," they literally mean "The world moves on."

Spacedog, I think you pretty much got the gist of my rant. ;)

A nice exercise would be to translate all the uses of time for a while. For instance, you used almost lunchtime. Instead you could say you have a recurring pattern where you prioritise food consumption over other activities such as work, and one such transition phase is coming up. (I'm sure some people can do better than me)

Or Fear Itself could say (who is obviously lying so he doesn't hurt my feelings), I wanted to read this rant, but I have a number of actions to perform that I prioritise over reading some stupid rant in the pit.

[Telperien]

No, Roland, they're the same thing. You know, "Time is money".

Well, that explains why wasting time doesn't seem to increase my money supply.

[Arwin]

No, Roland, they're the same thing. You know, "Time is money".

They are a very similar level of concept. What time is for movement, is money for matter. Money expresses the relative value we humans express of matter against other matter.

[Richard Pearse]

A nice exercise would be to translate all the uses of time for a while. For instance, you used almost lunchtime. Instead you could say you have a recurring pattern where you prioritise food consumption over other activities such as work, and one such transition phase is coming up. (I'm sure some people can do better than me)

Yes, that or... "lunchtime". One of these seems much more convenient than the other.

Time is really no different from length. Length is merely a way of comparing somethings size with something else. Without something to compare it to it is meaningless, same goes for time.

[Madd Maxx]

Time is on my side. Yes it is.

[Arwin]

Time is on my side. Yes it is.

The speed of my movement is greater than yours? The energy supply for your movement is smaller than mine?

1920s Style "Death Ray", exactly. And of course, we order and plan our movements. And a uniform, consistent movement is a very useful tool to help us order and plan our movements. It's just that the usefulness of this tool has gotten to the Tools head.

[tremorviolet]

Late to work again this morning, I take it...

[Lucretia]

I was thinking maybe he had a term paper due.

[Giraffe]

What bothers me most about time is that it keeps on slipping. Often into the future, of all places.

[WhyNot]

Ummmm. Did they just install internet access at the cafes in Amsterdam? ;) Off on a day trip from Almere? Smoke a good one for me, Arwin! You rock!

[Roland Orzabal]

They are a very similar level of concept. What time is for movement, is money for matter. Money expresses the relative value we humans express of matter against other matter.

Well that's a large part of the problem. It began on the same conceptual level, but has mutated into a multileveled entity that exists on at least three planes of (non-) existence. The relative value of money to any given set of matter disappeared long ago (and no, I'm not talking about the end of the gold standard, though that is an example of the further abstraction of the concept). What we're left with now is an ethereal blob of shit for which certain elements are defined, but for which those elements do not form any corporeal whole, an internally consistent abstraction, or even a coherent outline of the original idea.

By the way, Arwin, all jokes aside, it's nice to see another poster refer to varying levels of abstraction. I have been unable to verbalize the concept past the idea of a word being a first-level abstraction of a physical object, and an image being either a second- or third-level abstraction, depending on what element of the consciousness generated it (metaconscious images being second-level abstractions, conscious or subconscious "images" being third-level). If you have any ideas on a possible structure of real-world examples, please drop me an email; I'd love to discuss it with you. It'd be very helpful to try to communicate my image of human belief-structure spectra, if I ever actually finish constructing the damn thing. My email's in my profile.

[Polycarp]

What bothers me most about time is that it keeps on slipping. Often into the future, of all places.

Yeah, but who can say where the road goes, where the day flows? Only time...

[Kythereia]

I was thinking maybe he had a term paper due.

Late for his girlfriend's date?

[Madd Maxx]

I was totally confused by Arwin's post. I thought since the Stones had been touring since the Precambion period that they might have stopped in the Netherlands once. Maybe in 1960 for 20 minutes. But I guess it just feels like the first time...

[Arwin]

What bothers me most about time is that it keeps on slipping. Often into the future, of all places.

It's just an illusion. But I can see how the sense of flying like an eagle could give that impression (must have been the good stuff).

[Arwin]

I was totally confused by Arwin's post. I thought since the Stones had been touring since the Precambion period that they might have stopped in the Netherlands once. Maybe in 1960 for 20 minutes. But I guess it just feels like the first time...

First instance.
(And first performance of the tour, I might add.)

[Arwin]

Well that's a large part of the problem. It began on the same conceptual level, but has mutated into a multileveled entity that exists on at least three planes of (non-) existence. The relative value of money to any given set of matter disappeared long ago (and no, I'm not talking about the end of the gold standard, though that is an example of the further abstraction of the concept). What we're left with now is an ethereal blob of shit for which certain elements are defined, but for which those elements do not form any corporeal whole, an internally consistent abstraction, or even a coherent outline of the original idea.

By the way, Arwin, all jokes aside, it's nice to see another poster refer to varying levels of abstraction. I have been unable to verbalize the concept past the idea of a word being a first-level abstraction of a physical object, and an image being either a second- or third-level abstraction, depending on what element of the consciousness generated it (metaconscious images being second-level abstractions, conscious or subconscious "images" being third-level). If you have any ideas on a possible structure of real-world examples, please drop me an email; I'd love to discuss it with you. It'd be very helpful to try to communicate my image of human belief-structure spectra, if I ever actually finish constructing the damn thing. My email's in my profile.

Kind words, might take you up on that. You might be stuck on the fact that words are one level above what they describe, not what 'is'. Does that make sense?

[Roland Orzabal]

Kind words, might take you up on that. You might be stuck on the fact that words are one level above what they describe, not what 'is'. Does that make sense?

Yeah, that's the idea. What "is" is the thing you can't get to; you have to circle around it and construct the picture using abstractions. It's the way the human mind works, for some reason. Anyway, I've got the word-ojbect association; what I'm having trouble with is communicating levels of abstraction beyond that. I can tell you what they represent, but not where they are, because everybody has a different image of the overall structure. Mine is more or less spherical, with the core being that central "reality" which both comprises and defines everything else, and the body of the sphere consisting of a latticework of "points" which are conceptualizations of objects, connected together by ideas to form larger frameworks of philosophies.

The two other people to whom I've managed to explain this well enough for them to have any idea what I'm talking about have both pictured this differently; one visualizes something akin to a histogram, and the other sees it as more of a tree, with ideas stemming out from the trunk which is the concrete basis of reality. I can translate between these without much trouble. The two things I need to do are 1) figure out how to communicate the concept of an all-inclusive conceptual framework, and 2) find some organizational guidelines or axes on which to base a physical representation of the thing. That second part may well be impossible to achieve in a practical sense, since there four perceivable dimensions and a theoretically infinite number of planes of abstraction (hey, YOU make a diagram of a 10-dimensional sphere), but I hope to develop a working example anyhow. I could go on, but I've rambled enough in this thread, and to those who are uninitiated in the ways of thinking about abstractions way too fucking much, this probably comes across as a bunch of pretentious wankery anyhow. If you wonder WHY the hell I'm doing this, you can either search for my old thread on the Freedom of Thought Movement I intend to one day start, or you can just email me.

Incidentally, that offer is open to anybody who'd like to chat about this...or, alternatively, anybody who thinks a conversation with a crazy guy might be good for a few kicks. ;)

[Zoe]

Meanwhile, I'll just enjoy the illusion of the instrumental interpretation of time signatures. Ooooh yeeeaaah...!

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Yeah, time. Beckoning me. Always off flowing like a river. On and on it goes. Often, to the sea.

[Polycarp]

Yeah, time. Beckoning me. Always off flowing like a river. On and on it goes. Often, to the sea.

Did you look around for your possibilities? After all, the leaves are brown, there's a patch of snow on the ground, and the sky's the hazy shade of winter.

[Bill Door]

But...if it weren't for time, wouldn't everything have to happen all at once?

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Did you look around for your possibilities? After all, the leaves are brown, there's a patch of snow on the ground, and the sky's the hazy shade of winter.

Oh yeah, but time won't give me time. It won't let me wait that long.

[Richard Pearse]

And you run and you run to catch up with the Sun but it's sinking,
Racing around to come up behind you again,
The Sun is the same in a relative but you're older,
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

[Arwin]

Yeah, that's the idea. What "is" is the thing you can't get to; you have to circle around it and construct the picture using abstractions. It's the way the human mind works, for some reason. Anyway, I've got the word-ojbect association

No, I'm not sure you got what I meant. Words aren't a separate level of abstraction, they are a level above whatever they describe. That includes other words, images, symbols, etc. It's a mess. That's why it is so hard to make layers of abstraction. Think also of programming languages that can be 1st level (machine code), second level right up to fifth level. (prolog)

Why don't you open a thread for this in great debates, and I'll be happy to join you there?

[Liberal]

Is it possible to formulate a synthetic a priori proposition about something noumenal?

[Arwin]

Is it possible to formulate a synthetic a priori proposition about something noumenal?

I'm not 100% sure if I understood this correctly, but I think you just did.

[Roland Orzabal]

Is it possible to formulate a synthetic a priori proposition about something noumenal?

Not with any certainty, no, but by defining what elements we can perceive and their relative degree of difference from our impressions of the noumenal object, we come closer to gaining an inherent, if incommunicable, understanding of what exactly our perceptive process is. That would be essentially the point of what I said above.

[Roland Orzabal]

No, I'm not sure you got what I meant. Words aren't a separate level of abstraction, they are a level above whatever they describe. That includes other words, images, symbols, etc. It's a mess. That's why it is so hard to make layers of abstraction. Think also of programming languages that can be 1st level (machine code), second level right up to fifth level. (prolog)

Why don't you open a thread for this in great debates, and I'll be happy to join you there?

Dunno...I stay out of GD for a reason. We start going on about this in there, we're going to have people upholding 18 different definitions of "abstraction", proposing pure linear thought, bringing up principles of quantum mechanics, and maybe have a side dish of what-if nihilism thrown in for shits and giggles...plus we're going to have to provide cites for concepts such as "noumenal objects", and frankly -- while I do find that particular idea useful to communicate the essence of the "thing" -- the less I'm forced to associate myself with Kant, the better. I'd much rather either do this here, or via e-mail.

I do want to continue it, though, because if you're saying that by your standards a word is not a first-level abstraction of an objects, we're missing each other's points somewhere. You can define an object (and by "object" I refer equally to a physical object or a specific conceptual entity) either as noumenal, which is somewhat useless for the purpose of discussion, or else by those elements of the thing which we agree we can and do perceive. With that accomplished, we form an abstract image of the thing in question, and impart upon that base-level (but still removed from the object itself) image an embodiment, which, thanks to the nature of human communication, is generally a word. It's quite likely that you've experienced the simplest evidence of the truth of this abstraction for yourself: have you ever had an idea or a feeling, a strong conceptualization in your mind that was very much a single, specific, well-defined thought, yet searching your memory and knowledge, you drew a blank on any possible word to express it? What you've done there is attempted to formulate a first-level abstraction from the base, or object, level...and it's the same thing you do anytime you use a word for anything. The only difference in the two scenarios is that, when talking about, say, a pizza, your mind, which is quite used to dealing with the concept of pizza, instantly provides the term you've attached to that abstraction, and you say "pizza" without giving it a second thought. The fact that this comes so naturally -- quite often without any metaconscious intervention at all -- leads many people to believe that there is no difference in level between word and object. This is a flawed perception, but easy nonetheless to conclude if one never seeks evidence to the contrary.

I agree with your statement that words are a level above whatever they describe, but that seems to be confirming my point rather than refuting it. Regarding symbols, that would serve to make the symbol an even higher-level abstraction from the object level, as we are then abstracting the abstraction of the original object. Continuing along those lines, something even more complex, such as a coherent philosophy that encompasses various ideas and objects, can be a tenth-level abstraction from its most basic object (though not, obviously, of every object included in the philosophy). This is ignoring the different types of abstraction in favor of talking solely about the primary scale, but I trust you understand why I'm doing that. Now, levels of programming language are a different story, because all we're doing there is redefining the same concepts on the same level but in different terms. We aren't going up or down the primary scale of abstraction. Binary forms assembler forms C forms Visual Basic, but at the end of the day we're still moving electrons around in the same patterns with the same meaning attached to the result. The only difference in the "levels of language" are man-made levels of complexity -- pointedly different from abstraction.

[Telperien]

Incidentally, that offer is open to anybody who'd like to chat about this...or, alternatively, anybody who thinks a conversation with a crazy guy might be good for a few kicks. ;)

Mr. Crazy Guy, you have my e-mail address, do you not?

[Rilchiam]

I know what you mean. I vastly prefer Newsweek. But right now I can't afford that and Writer's Digest, so I'm just reading Newsweek online.

[Arwin]

I'm still there Roland, I just remembered that I have an Eng. Lit. essay that deals with this, and might be interesting. Just have to find it, as it's been a while.

One thing I'm wondering though - is it sensible to work with levels here? I am more and more instinctively distrusting any kind of distinction, and am increasingly of the opinion that it is better to describe factors that can cover a 'distance' in anaologe terms.

I'll get back to you this weekend.