Physicist Julian Barbour wrote a very important book called "The End of Time". In his view, time does not have an independent existence. Individual "moments" are referred to as "Platonias", and exist independent of each other. This is extremely similar to how Nagarjuna and other Buddhist writers treat time.

Please take a look at the video in the following link and feel free to comment.

Killing Time

Views: 167

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Does this mean I'll stop getting old?
Define old?
Very well done-
He seems to only describe half the problem. if there is no awareness of time, then there is no awareness of change and thus no awareness of space or division for that matter. (infact awareness of anything seems to be somewhat integral altogether) so why Barbour claims that there are 'separate' platonia or 'instances' is beyond me. this separation seems to require another explanation. really this seems to just be a rekindling of leibniz' Monad. i would also question whether or not these really are view shared by nagarjuna. from what i recall nagarjuna attempted to make no propositions at all, and that was the basis for his arguments against those that had.
I watched the video twice so that I could get a better "feel" for the subject. He is right about time it is indeed a concept. Though I am uncertain to his definition of motion, motion certainly exists. Motion is context. We, humans and other rational paradigms, lack the capacity to sense movement. It is the change of context that we "see" and it is the binding of sensory flow that allows for abstraction. All experience is polymorphic, however our inability to "see" both change in context (motion) and bind the flow (movement) of information concurrently into an abstraction leads us to believe that experience is linear. We miss things because "we sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained". Countless others possibilities do exist it just that they are inexpressed. Inexpression is defined as those attributes of points that lie undisclosed within a given density As to snap shots of "now" having "structure", how about using "context" instead. The "now" is the event horizon.
"Motion is context. We, humans and other rational paradigms,lack the capacity to sense movement. It is the change of context that we "see" and it is the binding of sensory flow that allows for abstraction." - in relation to this, i probably dont understand enough of what you mean.

however i would ask exactly how is 'movement' and 'a change of context' different? if we can't perceive the former then it is just a concept like 'time'. are you implying that there is some 'movement' outside of perception? id be delighted if you could perhaps go into more detail.

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2020   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service