In a discussion on Facebook I stated that the definition of “time” is incorrect.

The definition of time which we use is:
“Non spatial continuum in which the events occur.”

My definition is:
“Time is the relation between two events in the continuum of events”
Time is relevant and limited to the events.

In philosophical discussions I always introduce the idea about the hierarchy in the mind concepts.
Every mind concept appears in certain hierarchical order and by changing the hierarchy we end up with fallacy.

In this particular argument the time is placed before the events.
The definition of time IMPLIES that the events appear IN time, but it is actually the other way round – time is created as concept from the relation between two or more events.

My arguments:

1) Universe without events is Universe without time.

Some people will argue that there will be time although it will be impossible to measure it.
That would be fallacy.
We measure time with time which is actually event with event (circle around the sun with spins around the Earth axis)
The logical conclusion is that we cannot apply time to a motionless universe.

How do we measure time? – with constantly looping event.
What is to MEASURE time? – it is to relate one event to another event.

I think that this is quite clear.

2) We need two or more events to have time as existing concept.
One event is insufficient for time creation.

To have “motion” we need universe with least two objects.
To have “time” we need universe with least two events.

If there is universe with one only object, that object can not show motion and cannot exist in time.
It can only exist as motionless in space.
The definition of time does not apply to such Universe.

If the Universe is created from two objects, which are moving away from each other, according to definition of time we should have time, but how can we explain and how can we measure time in such universe?
In this case we can only claim that an event occurs in space, but not in time.

3) When you argue the above, do not refer to the already built mind concept of time.
- Have in mind, that you already have the time concept from at least two events in your life.
Note that your thinking is an event too.
- Do not use “speed” for proving “time”.
Speed is related to motion.
If we have only two moving away from each other objects, speed has no use for time.
- Relation between to events is for example “the number of Earth spins in one circle around the sun”.
- Every time-measuring tool is “event”
- All events appear in space except the thought (the thinking).

Well, this is my idea about “time”.
Most probably I missed something, but that is why I put it on discussion

—

With my Google friends (in Google forums) we have interesting discussion and I’d like to put here the spark which put the atheist forum in fire.
Here it is with small changes and additions:

—

I’ll start with the famous question: “Did a falling tree in the forest made a sound if nobody heard it?”
The answer is NO. The tree didn’t make any sound but did produce vibration with frequency between 20 and 20000 hertz.
Sound appears to us (and some sentient beings) when we with our ears detect (observe) these vibration frequencies.
The same explanation stands for all observations we do.
We do not observe matter but patterns created by wave interferences.
Those patterns have to be observed in order to “turn in to” the thing, which we named “matter” in all its observable variations. If not observed everything is nothing but waves interfering with each other.

When Einstein heard about “consciousness causes the wave function to collapse”, he said – “Does that mean that if I don’t look at the moon it doesn’t exist?”
Now we have the answer for Einstein. The moon is still there as pattern from wave interference but it becomes the moon Einstein knows only when observed by Einstein.
To simplify it in simplified scientific language I’d say that by observing we make the wave function to collapse, making it possible for as to see the particle behavior exhibited in what we call matter.

Since the singularity is beyond any mathematical explanation, we don’t have mathematical proof for the Big Bang theory but that doesn’t stop science using this explanation for the creation of the universe.
I’ll use part of the Big Bang theory to make my point.
Science doesn’t have explanation for the first moments of the Big Bang but at one point all that Universe was is put in two words – photons and neutrons (wave-particles) and to be more scientifically precise I’ll add space and time..
Note that some of you can be deceived from the “particle” part in the “wave-particle” name.
That entity is not particle. It is entity said to behave either as wave or as particle, but behavior is not consistence.
Therefore, it would be safer to think of it as wave.

Every wave emission needs source and since the Universe was waves, it could not be the source for itself.
That missing source in the scientific theories is what people call God.
I would not call it emission source though.
I would call it “awareness-wave” which interferes with itself.
My favorite explanation about this interference is DREAM.
A mind creates dream by interfering with itself.
The dream is the pattern created by the interference

I can imagine the difficulties many of you would have comprehending my idea.
It is not that difficult to understand that your observation makes the things appear in their sensible nature. Your minds are like medium, in which the wave turns into particle and becomes interactive sensible part of your surrounding.
The mind as part of the “awareness-wave” (God) can observe its own interference thus creating delusion about existence out of the self.

From this point on, the science can be right in most of its conclusions, but also very wrong in some of its bases.

Religious people BELIEVE that God created the world.
Creation implies deliberate action, intention.
The world wasn’t intentionally created therefore we can not call it creation.
It is appearance.
God, which I already explained as “awareness-wave”, is not even aware of its “creation”, but we as part of the “awareness-wave” can become aware of the “fact” that we observe pattern of our self-interference and this state is known as “awaken”.
You read about many such awakened people who brought the knowledge for God in this world.
That knowledge was given in different times to people with different intellectual levels and the explanations about God had to mach the intellectual capability of the auditory.

People with low intellectuality tend to accept old explanation without questioning and become blind religious followers.
The need for salvation brings obedience to rules, which was (and still is) used by the church for self-interests.

Possible argument:

- We may not hear the sound but it is still there. We can not say that only what is heard is sound.

Answer to the above:

The “sound” word has no absolute value because it describes our perception for certain vibration frequency.
That is valid for any word, which describes our perceptions.

Why our senses have no absolute value?
Lets take “red” (the color) for example.
It is word for color.
We named a range of light spectrum with the name “red”.
We agree on the fact that most humans can recognize that certain range, but we can not know how each of us see the color with that name.
Therefore, we conclude that perceptions have no absolute value.

In other words, one must not put absolute value for what we see, hear, touch, taste and smell.
It is only our perception of the wave interference, which we call Universe.
To make it even more clearer I’ll reverse it: The Universe is wave interference and our senses are making us see it the way we see it.
And now to make it complete: The Universe is wave interference + conscious observation
We can not apply noise, and light as property of the Universe, because for sentient being without the ability to see and hear it is not noisy and visible.
To say that the noise and the light are still there is illogical knowing that we are using not absolute values.
The absolute values are in the length and the phase of the interfering waves not in our perception of those values.

Another possible argument:

- Do you know what “wave function collapse” is?

Answer to the above:

Yes I know.
In not simplified language, I mean that we as measuring (observing) tools are defining the value to which the set of calculated probabilities will collapse. All around us is set of systems interfering with each other and us. We are defining the values for the wave function collapse of all that systems.

Then I decided to show them their belief.
According to Richard Dawkins “there almost certainly is no God”.
I didn’t want to prove that “there almost certainly is God”, because I can imagine how difficult it would be for atheist to change their belief to such a degree.
So, my intent was to proof that the possibility for God’s existence or not existence is 50/50.

Following is my forum posting in Mr. Dawkins forum with small change made to cover my next posting.

[posting START]

The universe is described as matter, space and time.
I support the argument that Consciousness must be included too and I must prove it.
How can it be proved.
If I am right then the consciousness as component of the Universe must affect somehow the matter, the space or the time.
Only then we can agree that the Universe is consists of four (not of three) components.

You will not take any proof from the past because you haven’t seen it, but you will agree if the science has registered consciousness to affect matter.

1) According to the latest study of Dr. Jon-Kar Zubieta, person’s belief can make the brain to produce its own painkillers which is scientific proof that the mind can affect and control the matter.

2) All miracles where person is cured are argued with auto-suggestion (the person cured himself)
Still that is proof that consciousness affects the matter.

3) Although Time is a component of the Universe it is relative only to the consciousness.

4) Although Space is component of the Universe, it is related ONLY to the consciousness.

The last two (3 and 4) do not affect the matter but the way we observe it which makes matter related to the consciousness.

You can argue or accept the first two, but according to the science they are true.
That would make Consciousness the forth component of the Universe.

If you agree on that or can not argue it, I have the “none-preaching” right to place my statement against yours, and it is:

Matter is delusion of the Consciousness.

Now you can argue my statement by proving it wrong.
Let’s assume that I have no interest to prove it right.
The above supporting evidences are enough to reach at least 50/50.
That would make Dawkins very wrong.
I can only comfort him with the fact that my argument is given fore the first time in his web site.
(Hope I don’t sound sarcastic…)

I suppose that there is more to be said on all this, but let’s start from here.

[posting END]

And then the thread became a little boring…
There is not much to be said from atheist side.
Now they have the evidence which they are always asking for using that smile… you know…

And I have time now to have a thought about the self delusion which makes professors to mistake God with Religion.
Just imagine, to waste such a time for writing book like “The God Delusion” in which you prove that God doesn’t exist because the religion is wrong. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to name the book “The Religion Delusion”?
Because what on earth Religion has to do with God’s existence, professor!?

Just because you met few damn stupid pastors doesn’t make God a delusion.
Did you ever consider the possibility, Mr. Dawkins, that believing has nothing to do with the truth.
So if my granny tells you that God is white bearded old man in the heaven that has nothing to do with the truth, and you can not say that God doesn’t exist just because this belief doesn’t fit the science and the logic.

Did you ever asked yourself how a belief appears?
Some thousands years ago a tribe (in Europe let say) decided to belief in God.
Could happen.
They decided that God is spirit and only good people will go to Him.
They could belief that only the one who kills most enemies will go to God and that would serve their surviving best, but they choose the stupid belief to be good.
Then another tribe on the other side of the earth (Australia) decided to belief in the same God for the same reason.
Could happen. Science can prove it.
But then on the other side of the earth (Asia) another tribe started to belief in the same God for the same reason.
And then another tribe in Siberia did the same.
And then another tribe, somewhere else…
Hm… What science say about this?

If two (or even more) civilizations without any connections created the belief that this world is a dream, would that be a signal to look not only in the white bearded old man as a God?
Or you chose to oppose the most easiest God who can be rejected with your intellectual capabilities.

Come one dear professors, try to think like carpenters.
It might help more than your title degrees.

So, what was the experiment?
I simply opened a topic in Richard Dawkins website forum
My intent was to examen the thinking and logical capability of the atheists.
I wanted to see if there is any difference between religious and atheist behavior in a discussion.
It is interesting to see how the EGO reacts when is flatter or insulted.
When EGO feels flattered and when insulted?
And again – what is the difference between religious believer and atheist believer.
Yes they both are believers and we know it very well.

A week ago I had a conversation on “Freedom” with Freemasons on Facebook.
You won’t believe it but after I offered my understanding that Freedom is lack of desire they just deleted the topic.
There was no offense or bad language from my side.
It was the way I brought them to the idea and made it irrefutable.
Their EGO broke.

The same happened with Dawkins friends.
Well the topic is not deleted.
It reached 273 answers in two days.
Most of them of course troll sounding, but some of them with serious attempts to defend the atheist belief.

A very interesting result from the experiment is that although atheists claim that religions are creating disrespect between people, based on religious belief, they are more aggressive and disrespectable than any religious opponents.
They fail to prove that atheist are better communicators and community partners.

I hoped that atheists, putting their belief on science will show higher intellectual level and logical capabilities.
Not at all.
Most of them are religiously defending their belief with the primitive request “Prove it”.
If you give them prove they dismiss it not with arguments but with accusations.

[Example]

Humans moral values are first recorded as enforced by God rules in the scriptures talking about God.
Humans accepted the rules but did not accept God who gave the rules.
The world is living under the moral values of God without recognizing (accepting) God.

This is “argued” with the accusation that the one who wrote the rules did lie that they come from God.

Any way, you can read the discussion for yourself.

I have to admit that I used “dirty” ego techniques.
They worked like they do with 99% of the people regardless their belief.
When you address them with “my friend” they take it as a patronizing.
If you argue their statement and make it indefensible with the first strike, they lose their ability to move on to another field of the discussion. The EGO wants victory before moving forward. EGO can not move on other rails but on its own.
They use sarcasm but when you use it on them they warn you with ban.

Twisting meanings is the best defence of the weak person.
Atheists use it all the time.

I gave three simple points as base for God’s existence.

1) Humans moral values are given (first records) in scriptures stating “God exist”. They were given to the humans as enforced law from God. It is not serious to argue it with “they did lie about God, to make humans obey the law”. Your arguments can not be based on assumptions.

2) The scientific impotence to prove present moment makes any material based request irrelevant in connection with God existence. It unfolds endless field for discussing the material observation as a conscious delusion.

3) It is against the Logic to hold the statement “God does not exist”. Such statement has no logical end, while “God exist” eventually (theoretically) goes to an end. In other words, existence can be proved by observation, while none existence can not be proved – there is always possibility for existence.

Three points, based on historical facts, science and logic.
None of them was refuted. Instead they defined them as “preaching”.

In the Psychology text book can be found the explanation that humans tend to like other humans by intellectuality along with all the other signs.
But(!) humans don’t like people that are far more intelligent or perfect.
They feel uncomfortable in the presence of such people.

I found out that they not only feel uncomfortable, but become highly aggressive, mentally unstable and openly manifesting their dislike.
That fully applies to Freemasons and atheists.

Unexpectedly for some of you, religious people are dealing away better with their EGO when meeting person with higher intellectual level.
Their belief in God gives them a moral value which covers the intellectual gap and comforts the EGO.

I observed many interesting psychological and intellectual issues in my experiment, but the most surprising for me was the intellectual impotence of the atheists to differentiate between belief and knowledge

Atheists like most religious people don’t really understand the idea of God.
Religious people are imagining God in as many ways as atheists use to reject Him.
Presenting new explanation about God meets the same nonacceptance in both groups.

—

OK Faaizan, I don’t like to put good people in the corner

Mohammad did never say that the Torah was corrupted.
He blamed the Jews for not following the Torah.
He proved that Torah was unchanged by saying:
“Bring then the Taurat and read it, if you are truthful.”

So, the need to give the Koran is in this verses:

[6.155] And this is a Book We have revealed, blessed; therefore follow it and guard (against evil) that mercy may be shown to you.
[6.156] Lest you say that the Book was only revealed to two parties before us and We were truly unaware of what they read.
[6.157] Or lest you should say: If the Book had been revealed to us, we would certainly have been better guided than they, so indeed there has come to you clear proof from your Lord, and guidance and mercy. Who then is more unjust than he who rejects Allah’s communications and turns away from them? We will reward those who turn away from Our communications with an evil chastisement because they turned away.

Arabs couldn’t read the Torah because wasn’t written in their language.

Now you can read it because it is translated.
Now you can follow it, because you can read it.

The Torah corruption is not mentioned anywhere in Koran.
It is Muslim interpretation and justification of not following the Torah.
It is a way to separate from the Jews belief.
But Mohammad clearly said that He gives you what is in the Torah.

On the contrary, Jesus brings New Law, which is verified by many prophets and which directly is proclaimed in Jeremiah’s prophecy as The New Covenant.

Muslims should not (MUST NOT) blame the scriptures for corruption.
God’s word can not be corrupted.
It is humans who twist and corrupt the meaning of God’s word (teaching).
Even now the Christian church corrupts the teaching of Jesus, but it stays clear and unchanged in the scriptures.

Don’t ever say that God’s word can be corrupted, my friend.
Say “Do not twist the meaning of God’s words”

And now it appears (if you agree with me) that Muslims received the Torah but in a way which is understandable for Arabs and covers their culture, habits, and needs.
The base is the same “The True Word of God”.
The details deffer.

Don’t keep spite and anger toward Jews, because they are your brothers in Faith.
Don’t keep spite and anger toward Christians, because they are followers of Isa. Try to understand Isa’s teaching, and say not that it is corrupted.
It is the church interpretation which is corrupted and Christians belief and actions (of course not all of them

Have in mind that corruption comes from humans.
Muslims are humans too

Surprisingly the Pyramids of Giza were not voted (!) as one of the new seven wonders of the world.

I have very little visitors in my weblog and they probably started to think that I dropped the “manipulation” articles.
No, my friends.
Every study needs examples.

The TruBar project was part of the study.

If you don’t know what WordPress is, it is the engine on which my weblog runs.
It is developed by clever and bright guys and it is FREE of charge.
Somehow it happened that the users of this software started to get SPAM
Then the bright guys decided that they can stop it with another software called Akismet
Akismet is filtering system which runs on a BIG server.
You go on a weblog, and you comment.
Your comment is sent for filtering to the server on which Akismet runs.
Akismet looks at it and decides whether it is SPAM or normal comment, and then it returns answer to the blog where you comment.
The blog system decides according to Akismet’s answer to publish or not to publish your comment.

Clever eh!?
And very sophisticated…

Well, “sophisticated” is CLEVER.

Just imagine few hundred thousands of weblogs sending data to a server and getting it back.
And all that for free.
That server has to be a monster.
How much it cost to maintain such a monster?
Don’t worry.
It is paid off.
There is a lot of paid subscriptions for it.

But that does not matter.
What matters is that there are clever guys who menage to do all this.

And now imagine this;

A guy goes to these CLEVER guys and tell them: “Hey, friends, why don’t you fix the way WordPres posts the comments and stop the spam without using that heavy monster Akismet? It only slows down my weblog.”

What do you think will be their answer?
Any answer that you could think off will be wrong, because they will simply not answer.
Why?
Why wouldn’t they answer?

An answer would start discussion.
In a discussion they must prove that nothing could be done with the way WordPress handles comment posting.
That can not be proved and they know it.
But why they don’t change it then?
Because Akismet will stop to work…

And now imagine one more think;

A guy found very easy and simple way to stop the SPAM.
What must that guy do?
Go and tell it.
To whom?
The clever guys don’t want to hear about it.

OK lets imagine that he will say it loud and many other guys will hear him.
Can you imagine the reaction: “What!? Are you saying that you made something so simple which is better than Akismet!? Are you in your mind!?”

What is the lesson?
You can not go against the established rules, authority and momentum.
Well, you can, but the only way to do it is to use the momentum like Aikido masters do.
Pull the momentum your way and direct it.

Some of you would ask: “What about TruBar?”
And I’ll say: “What about TruBar? Everyone deserves the SPAM he/she gets.”

This is not “Mind manipulation (9)”.
Let see how did we come to the point of self manipulation.

I’m carpenter and I’m employed by a company.
I am payed to do carpentry.
I AM PAYED.
Is that right?
What “to be payed” means?
To earn money?
If “to be payed” means “earning money”, then I am paying the company that employs me, because they earn money with my work.
What!?
Does it sound stupid to you?
I know that it does.
It sounds like kind of “I’ll fire my employer.”
How can one say that?
Now, tell me what do you do when you leave your employer by your own will?
Let say that you are not happy anymore with your employer and you resign.
How do you call that?
Resignation.
Why?
Why not “dismissal”?

To work for someone is to make money for him/her.
If you stop to make (pay) money for that someone, why don’t you say that you fire him/her?
If the employer decides that you are not making enough money for the company, he/she can fire you, but if you decide that the employer is not making enough money for you then you don’t fire him/her, but simply “resign”.

Why is that?

It is called “dependency”.
It is the way your weakness is expressing itself.
It is the way you give up your freedom for money.
The irony here is that the money is yours and you give up your freedom for your money.
Finally you are left with your money, dependent on the will of the one you are paying to (your employer).

Isn’t that amazing manipulative result?
The beauty of it is that nobody intended this manipulation.
You did it for yourself.

Happy Birthday, son!

We will imagine:

• One day without cars, air plains, motto bikes, trucks and anything that burns fuel.
• One day without cigarettes.
• One day without alcohol.
• One day without advertising.
• One day without movies.
• One day without ________ (you say it)

One day without all from the above list.

to be continued…