Is that some kinda cry for help?

Prove first that existance exists... then we can perhaps discuss time.

I think there for I am,

I am there for I exist.

I exist there fore existence is real.

Next.

Time is man's measurement of motion relative to itself.

It does not exist, per se, but it is merely a concrete measurement of everything that surrounds us.

Only the present exists, the past and future are created by what our own memory remembers and do not exits at all only the present time is time.

Yes, but in the absence of motion, time is perceived in relation to the flow of thoughts.

If there was such an absence of motion.

And for that matter, what are thoughts? Are they real? They cannot be touched or heard, per se, but instead are left to be interpreted by our imperfect minds.

There is such a place of awareness...I have experienced it....an absence of motion in the physical sense. I call it time stalling. I have written about it in this thread. You probably have not read it.

Thoughts are things.

Well now that I've read it, what is your thought on altering out own sphere of time? Have you ever experienced a slowed time field or a heightened sense of awareness resulting in a slower timestream?

Slowed to what appeared to be a complete stop, but I think it was just very very slow. No movement. Only my thoughts seemed normal.

You know they actually have found there to be a time differance is several experiments where differnt clocks give different results based on einstiens equations. Gravity also distorts time, so as to its existance if it can be measured have differnet properties under different cirrcumstances, this is proof enough for me.

Tell that to space as it warps time changes relative to observers at differing parts of curved space.

Again I am amazed at the lack of science education today.
Yes thoughts are a thing we can measure them using FMRI and tell you what you are thinking. Electrical synapse is a thing bud, again just shocked at the absence of education.

Maybe science wasn't their strong point, LMAO

I shouldn't be so quick to judge, its not there fault, its education, we dont teach this stuff like we should.

Your first line says it all...

'I think'.

You THINK you exist.

Personally I am first then I think.

AB....which "I" ?



How do you correlate the "I" part of you?



(And hello, long time no type)

Start with what ever presupposition you want, it works out the same, its a bit dull to argue it given that we are communicating now.

Hi back.

If a picture paints a thousand words.

Could not also a word be a thousand pictures?

I am
Me
the interaction between you and me is I.
the interacton between me and the reader what thinks I am insane (they could be right) is also I. (but with a different frequency)

mostly I correlate the me that is I with all that is... As long as I am afloat within the sea of matter and energy I am a part of all that I am.

I am a single proton that at this time choses to reside on a mass point called earth. Yet still I am connected to the rest of reality.

Thankyou....what a beautiful explanation... using the limited pictures called words...

Well...I believe it was Thomas Aquinas who come up with the philosophical proofs against the existence of time. Take a Q&A me and a friend had over a case of beer...not exact quotes, but close enough. I'll take the part of "Q".


Q: What is time? How do we dissect it?
A: Time has three parts, past, present and future.

Q: Past, present and future being the base elements of time, how would one define them?
A: The past is what has already happened, the present is what is happening now, and the future is what has yet to occur.

Q: I f the past has already happened, it cannot change, correct?
A: True

Q: Yet there is nothing on earth that does not change in some manner, weither it be simple molecular movement in all matter, or the gradual decay that the second Thermodynamic principle boasts...correct?
A: Um..I guess.

Q: So by logical reasoning we can conclude that if something does not, in some way, change...then it cannot exist. Why don't we say, for the sake of argument the past exists not. Agreed?
A: Fine, but there is still the future and the present to account for.

Q: True, so let us define the future.
A: The future is all the events that have not happened yet.

Q: Not happened yet? By your own phrasing you have concluded that the future does not exist yet, so how can the future be part of time, which we are still attempting to define?
A: Uuuhhh....you're making my head hurt...

Q: Ok..let's look at the present. At what moment does the non-existant future transform into a tangible prestnt, and by same logic when does it dissapear back into the nothingness of the past? Once you think of the instant the future changes, it's too late and the moment is already the past, which cannot exist?
A:Shut up! You're confusing me!