Evolution thread.

And yet the whole time we both exist at exactly the same moment. My point is that any perceived difference is artificial because what we think of as time does not exist. One of us is experiencing the change depicted on the TV while the other is experiencing change with the clock. It doesn't change the fact that we both experience them at the same moment.

 

What I am talking about is a life form's reality of existance. When people go to the movie theater they each experience similar realities. This is the brains interpretation of what the eyes see. Time is about the same for each person in this moment. Now, life is much more than an artificial moment in time because of change. Reason being, our thoughts are wholly our own, and this being the case we direct what our brain can interpret. Complex thought IS the presence of a moment in time. So, time most defenantly exists, in each persons reality. Time should not be thought of as existing independent of human thought.

 

Time is a human construct and may only exit within that context. If it is a universal reality...we humans will never know because we would need to see it and thus it is back within the mind.

 

No matter how you look at how we experience time, the reality of existence is that we only exist in the moment. The past is just a memory and the future is nothing but probabilities. What we call time is nothing more than how we perceive changes from one moment to another. The fact that no two people experience time the same and we have no freedom of movement in time tells me that it does not share my objective existence.

 

That all of time is static and exists at once with we moving through it has caught on with more then a few astrophysicists as it lends credence to the idea of general relativity and worm holes.

 

While it may make for some interesting mathematics, I seriously doubt any of those astrophysicists have experienced anything that wasn't in the same moment as they were.

 

What you have stated is a direct result of where science is at the moment. What we know of reality is constantly changing. My theory of time gives room for further breakthroughs. I have read that some particles share the same polarities no matter where they exist with respect to one another. So, one particle in space and one on earth, if you change the polarity of the one in space the one on earth instantly changes. Now, what does this have to do with time? Simple, we have just proven that time does not exist for those two particles. On the other hand if a human travels to Mars then comes back to earth, people on earth would have aged more than that person. So, for humans time exists. Yet, without the ability to recognize this fact time would not exist. Such is the case for all life on earth except for humans. Time started with us.

This may seem like a fairy tail theory but is it any less of a fairy tail than Dark Matter or even Gravity. I don't think so. What we know as the scientific method needs to be restructured to include a method for resurching that which is unknown. If we only rely on what is known then we will be following a set path and ignoring those things that are, magic. It's always the impossible that seem most likely when it comes to breakthrough science.

 

No disrespect, but that of thinking is squarely in the box. Why is it so impossible to think human reality is different from any other life that has ever existed. Don't laugh but is it impossible that our existance upset the natural order of life, thus creatating this thing called time?

 

You would have to give me an example so I can read up on it. If I'm wrong about time then I will admit so. Time as I see it is not static unless you are simply referring to the existance of time in general.

 

This is what happens when you try to use religious ideas to address our physical world - a train wreck.

You can't just discard what we've learned about our universe on the grounds that the way we went about discovery couldn't answer all questions. And, if you want to construct your own rules of discovery (after having so easily discarded all of science), you need to state what your rules are.

Your "so humans could exist" is pure religion if taken to mean that humans were an objective. So far, no interest in humans by our universe has been detected. If you just mean you don't believe evolution has the capacity, well, we're back to noting the massive evidence for evolution.

Then, you put a time limit on evolution for coming up with "an understanding of existence"! But, "an understanding of existence" is what you were stating was a requirement for time to start. This is just one tiny part of the problem with your idea that time popped into existence when humans came - based only on your statement of belief. And, of course it totally rejects physics.

I'll have to say I'm always a little thrown when people use the term "reality" in these discussions. It seems to indicate that there is a "not reality" somewhere that we should care about. Are you suggesting there is a trickster god out there feeding us false information to prevent us from learning about our universe?

 

Science IS constructed for examining what is unknown. That is not what you are hoping for. You want to find a method that does not depend on evidence.

Dark matter can be measured, even though we haven't figured out what it is yet. With gravity, we have the recent confirmation of the Higgs boson, the detection of gravity waves and Einstein. And, you have no evidence even though you want to discard physics - in fact, scientific method.

You just gave an example of two humans who measured time and then suggested that it follows that time doesn't exist without humans!!! You are struggling to find a method of exploration that accepts that as if there were logic or evidence involved.

 

You're just showing that there are differences in how people perceive the passage of time.

That does NOT mean that time is changing in any way. It means the perception of each individual isn't identical. In fact, an individual may perceive the passage of time differently depending on circumstances.

 

With all the evidence of a modern world you seem to easily accept that we were formed by nature and not a creator that intended for us to be exceptional, abnormal to the existance of all other life. Now, that thought process is a train reck.

First, I am simply stating that reality of a human is completely different than all other life on Earth. Since you say it's religion I will state that my religion is an ongoing quest for truth. And, truth is not always in what science says. Science is a tool to create a truth for each person on earth. That's a reality. I do not dismiss science I just use it to form my opinion, as it should be used.

 

No person will experience the difference as a human observation. But, time variations are fact as measured over great distances and here on earth with particle accelerators and atomic clocks. That time DOES pass by for each person differently is now an accepted fact. It's not a matter of perception. Now, if the affects do to gravity or speed are great enough, two people can observe the same occurance over different periods of time and at different times with respect to each other. It's a pretty strong argument,ant that all time has to coexist concurrently and it's only the relative positon, speed and gravitational field of the observer that changes. If this is true, it really makes a great debate about "life after death" not as we know it, but an existance that never ended at all.

 

No. It means that two different people experienced a single fixed length event and perceived it differently based on environment, experience, and the many other factors that affect human perception.

You're proposing that the perception of time and time are identical - with time changing for each observer based on characteristics of that observer.

Then, you would like to ignore science, since science would suggest you should provide some evidence.

 

I'm going to start assuming that when you say "reality" you mean reality as opposed to perception - at least until you explain why you use that word. Then, there is "truth". I'm going to assume that "truth" is just one more word for "reality", which is also separate from perception.

So, no, reality is EXACTLY the same for every life form on earth. In fact, it is the same regardless whether there are life forms. Life is just an element of reality just like planets, photons, etc. are elements of reality. They really do exist, and thus they are part of reality.

There is NO evidence that there are multiple different realities based on some element of reality. What you are talking about is perception. There can be lots of different perceptions of one reality. If there isn't the cognitive ability to form a perception, then there can be no perception. Saturn isn't "perceiving" reality. But, reality is still everywhere. It's reality!

Science does NOT create "truth". Science is a method of exploration that involves a long sequence of improvements on our understanding of our universe. Is Einstein's theory "truth"? Science has been able to show its value, but there is no proof that it is true. There could be generalizations or exceptions that we simply don't know about. The problem is that humans don't know everything there is to know, so our judgement can not be considered perfect. It IS good enough to have made gigantic progress, however. It is FAR more successful than any other method of exploration that mankind has devised, including religion, when it comes to exploring how our physical universe works.

And, no, science has nothing to do with "truth for each person" - that's just a total mistake on your part. Science is interested in reality, and there is one reality. If there are multiple universes, that is STILL one reality. If there are many people perceiving stuff, then the one reality includes many people perceiving portions of reality in ways that are identical or not - with science being able to explore how perception works. But, that doesn't mean there are multiple realities - just different perceptions.

You DO dismiss science - in fact, with complete disregard and zero justification. You discarded ALL of physics. You don't believe even the foundation of modern biology. You propose that scientific method is so weak that it should be discarded. You can't dismiss all of science and then suggest you DON'T dismiss science. Those are opposites!!

 

I don't ignore science. In face I use it to provide a theory of time based on the evidence of the obvious distinct difference of humans as compared to millions of evolutionary years for the rest of life on earth.

Time is based on the perception of each person. Because, the reality of what is the human existance is unique to a space time universe. Without human thought time would not exist.

 

Well, it's not actually passing by differently for each person.

As you point out, it has to do with relative speed, etc.

Time can pass at different rates if there are significant differences in speed, for example. But, that isn't the same as saying it is different for different individuals, as the individuals could be at similar locations and speeds. Time can pass at detectably different rates on asteroids, planets, suns, galaxies, man-made satellites, and everything else that moves at a speed that is a high enough percent of the speed of light - whether it has a beating heart or a hunk of rock.

So, for example, our GPS satellites have to have time correction logic to correct for the difference in frame of reference between earth's surface and the orbit - which have slightly different rates of time passage. Otherwise, your GPS mapping system would be way off.

And, there aren't any beating hearts or dead bodies in those satellites.

What happened is that physicists came along and helped us improve our understanding of how time REALLY works, instead of the simple model that was close enough for our needs for so long.

You and I can still synch our watches and meet at a coffee shop at a precise second, as we're stuck here on earth's surface where time passes at the same rate for both of us - regardless of our perceptions.

 

No, you are TOTALLY ignoring what science says about time. You can NOT say you don't ignore science and then discard both physics and biology right down to the very core.

No, a person's perception is internal to that person. Perception is a brain function involved in interpreting inputs from the real world. There is ONE reality that we ALL share, which we call our universe.

 

Reality, as I define it, is the perception of a stimulant the brain interprets. This stimulant is based on each persons abilities of comprehension. As a baby comprehension is less complex yet the brain/individual learns at an astonishing rate. By the 18 months words that make sense to that baby are uttered. This is not the rate of learning in any evolutionary animal except for humans. Reality for that baby has been set in motion. There are things that science can't explain. The ability to feel someone staring at you is something I have already stated. How does science explain a 120lb woman lifting a car off her baby? They can guess but I have a feeling that there is much more to the human brain than you give credit for. I saw a documentary once where a man made things around him act as though gravity did not exist. There was documented film before technology could have doctored it. The US military showed up and asked him to reconstruct the event using the machines he used the first time but he could not. My bet is he was on drugs that altered the mind to a point strange things are possible. So, reality is undetermined for each second that time passes. We are not just brain interpretations, which all other life is. We are something different, something science can not yet explain. Even as I type this is my reality expressed in words.

Now, give me an example where I have disregarded science. And, if I did maybe that science was wrong.

 

You're just changing the definitions of real words and adding more words to confuse the issue.

Reality is the universe. Perception is a brain function that helps humans understand reality.

Your examples of what "science can't explain" are not at all hard to explain.

I've seen magicians, too. They're fun. But, they're just tricking you.

No, drugs do not warp the physical world around you - that is one gigantic assumption you're making without there being ANY evidence. Drugs change the person's perception. This happens by having the drugs go into your brain and screw with your neurons to make them no work quite right. That is NOT changing reality.

Yes, we are not "brain interpretations". We are real actual beings that are part of reality - just like every rock, every plant, every animal, etc.

You still have this notion that perception changes reality. That is just plain silly. Perception is a brain function that is involved in interpreting inputs from the real world. Every animal has perception, by the way. They may not be fully self aware, or whatever, but that doesn't mean they aren't perceiving the real world through the use of their brains.

 

Because there is no evidence that humans are really any different from all of the other life on this planet. We may be the most intelligent, but then some species had to be. Thinking that we're special because of it is simply anthropocentrism at work.

What if the time variations are nothing more than variations in the rate of change of the properties we're observing. Think about this. We know there are three special dimensions because we can directly experience them and we have freedom of movement within them. We can even measure them directly without having to consider any other property of the object we're measuring. Time isn't like that. We have no freedom to move in time, we cannot experience any point in time except the present, and we cannot measure it without something changing. While the concept of time makes it easier for us to understand our world, there is no evidence that it exists independently of our perception.

 

Well....that's not a fact as far as the way you are trying to use it.

First of all TIME cannot exist without SPACE...and vice/versa thus....SPACE-TIME.

Human Beings do not need to exist for Space-Time to exist and OBSERVATION need not occur for the Universe and Multiverse to exist.

Observation locks in Value and Function SPECIFIC TO THIS SINGLE DIVERGENT UNIVERSAL STATE OF REALITY.

And Observation is not limited to Humans as the D-Wave tests have shown.

D-Wave the first Commercial Producer of Quantum Computers...Google bought a 5000 Quibt Quantum Computer from D-Wave......well....D-Wave developed the first 10 of the 100 Quibit Quantum Computers and a Quantum System and Processor cannot be observed during assembly as to observe it the Quantum Processor WILL NOT WORK!!

In fact a Quantum Computer must NEVER have it's interior systems looked at and they are sealed and must be assembled ROBOTICALLY and when D-Wave assembled the first 10 of their 100 Quibit Computers....D-Wave Digital Video Taped their assembly but no one was ever allowed to watch the Video.

When D-Wave was done studying those10 Quantum Computers they did and experiment as they took the never before watched Video DVD of the first 4 100 Quibit Processors being assembled and they had 2 men watch the video.

IMMEDIATELY...all 4 of the first 100 Quibit Quantum Computers stopped being able to properly do Quantum Computation as they instantly stopped working properly the moment the 2 guy's watched their interior assembly on Video over 4 years ago!!!

NEXT...D-Wave took the next video of the next 4 Quantum Computers being assembled robotically and D-Wave took a clear plastic cup and put a HOUSE FLY in the clear cup and TAPPED THE CLEAR CUP TO A COMPUTER MONITOR AND THEN WITH NO ONE ELSE IN THAT ROOM....D-WAVE RAN THE VIDEO OF THE NEXT 4 D-WAVE 100-QUIBIT QUANTUM COMPUTERS BEING ASSEMBLED.

Immediately as the FLY saw the video being played of the second group of 4 100 Quibit Quantum Computer....which was the moment the Video was run....the next group of 4 of the 100 Quibit D-Wave Quantum Computers STOPPED WORKING!!

They are saving the last video of the last 2 Quantum D-Wave 100 Quibit Computers for another experiment but this definitively PROVES that any conscious observation of a Quantum System will LOCK IT INTO THIS UNIVERSAL REALITY via Function and Value!!

AA

 

I can google a lot of things, including sites that debunk your claims.

Isn't that's what PBS is for? And someone mocked a site for disproving as show on that. The main I idea is mutation creates something new and natural selection carries it on. The problem is no mutation created anything new and almost always they are either negative or neutral.

Don't you do the same when arguing for evolution?

 

And that's the point I'm asking about. When the first sexual only animal/living thing evolved who did it mated with? Not only you'll need two of them but you also need them to be of the opposite gender, at the same place, at the same time, and they have to be interested.