To question the length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity I introduce a third simultaneous event in the ladder paradox problem. How? Simply, by attaching a rod to each door, which is welded perpendicularly on the inside of the doors, in a way that Read more…
What is Time?
The widely accepted definition of time which we know from school is:
“Non spatial continuum in which the events occur.”
My definition is:
Time is the relation between two or more 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 case the time is placed before the events.
The accepted definition of time states that the events appear in Time, but it is actually the other way round – time is created as a concept from the relation between two or more events.
We had an interesting discussion in the already closed Orkut.com and I’d like to put here the spark which put the atheist forum in fire.
Here it is with small changes and additions:
So let’s see whether there is such a thing as “God for scientists”.
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 a 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 interference.
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 interfering waves.
“Can human beings know anything, and if so, what and how? This question is really the most essentially philosophical of all questions.” – Bertrand Russell
Not being offensive to Bertrand Russell’s logic I’d like to mark his question as illogical.
Such question should not be uttered if it puts in doubt the ability to know, assuming that we don’t know and we will never know [any answer].
It is also illogical to utter it if we assume that we have knowledge to the extent of having this question.
“I know” is a wrong statement in absolute sense.
“I create knowledge” is the right statement.
As long as we observe we will create knowledge.
All things are already known to us.
We can not observe something out of our five senses; therefore we can not create knowledge out of “the five”. In this Universe there is nothing unknown to us. The details are unimportant because they come from our knowledge.
We know what knowledge are we missing, only if we already have the knowledge about the subject? Not knowing what knowledge are we missing, is an ignorance.
The above said may sound “non sense” if one does not know the meaning of “knowledge”.
Have Bertrand Russell really explained what is “knowledge”?
The self-awareness does not use words and meanings for itself. (How can you explain you, being you?)
Meanings and concepts are created and put in words after the self-awareness observes something different than its own self.
“Motion, object, something different than myself.”
We have just created knowledge by creating the concept of something which is not “me”. The same way we create all possible knowledge.
The Concept An existence is claimed only after observation. Contrary to all philosophical claims and dictionary definitions, Existence is state of presence in an observation. The mind changes the concept by applying “existence” to the object, forgetting that the “existence” derived from (and actually Read more…
The main problem in understanding the concept “Awareness beforehand” is: the mind do not pay attention to the fact that it works with meanings and concepts created after the observation. Once an existence was registered in observation the “existence” concept was created and from Read more…