Suppose their was no death

[rowen]

Would their be anything imperfect in the world?

[bernee51]

Most 'action' is indeed a reaction to past influences. What we call 'action' is in fact 'reaction'. Buttons get pushed results occur. That does not make the past any more real.

Then if the past was not real, then why do you use it to explain an action. You say that action is a reaction to PAST influences... all that is left is the FUTURE resultant of the action.

I have never said it WAS not real. I have constantly said it IS not real.

Believed to exist. Action as if they ar real does not make them so. Just as action (and belief) as if god were real does not make him so. This does not mean it is not ‘real’ for the believer.

Do you say that god exists to the believer then? Beliefs are mental constructs; which according to you are not real. An action is real for the simple fact that it occurs 'now' and it is a happening. One can not assume that since an idea may be fraudulent, that an action is unreal. Action and idea are two separate realms.

If the believer acts as if god is real – he might as well be. Though an idea my be fraudulent does not mean a resultant action may be, as you say, ‘unreal’.

Most (if not all) of the action we take is in fact reaction to past influences – be they real or imagined.

Indeed it does...I refer you to the 'time ship' which we create for ourselves.

We do not create time for ourselves.

No – we create our ‘selves’

I do not choose whether or not I want a past, a future, or a now. We are born under the influence of time. It is not a question of personal decision. At least I have not met anybody that chooses not to have a past or chooses to have just a future.

We can however move to act rather than react. We can move to reduce the influence of the past by acting in the present. This can only be achieved by acting out of mindful awareness.

[bernee51]

How does a rock falling to earth show “time exists�?

The rock falls at a rate. Ignoring wind resistance and other complicating factors, if a rock is tossed up in Ottawa, one second after it reaches its apex, it will be traveling at 9.806 meter / second. This will happen whether or not there is someone there to observe. Of course the rock is unaware that it is falling. Nevertheless, both the one second interval and the specific rate of speed, are indicators that time has elapsed.

This indicates that we have a method of measuring change. Not only that we are smart enough to realise that the rate of change is different under different circumstances e.g. in a vacuum, or on the moon. Time is a convention.

Time is an observed phenomenon, by means of which human beings sense and record changes in the environment and in the universe.

Time exists in the noosphere.

Time exists, as far as we can tell that anything exists in the universe. The observation of time exists in the noosphere.

The observation of change occurs in the physiosphere and the biosphere – the concept and the interpretation exist in the noosphere.

I’ll hazard a guess and state that a rock, not having a presence in the noosphere, cannot know when it begins falling and when it stops. Time is only relevant to those who can observe and measure. It is also arbitrary and relative.

Is it your view that if something is not relevant to an observer that it does not exist?

It depends on the penetration of that event into the observer’s levels of existence. The tree root I stubbed my toe on last weekend was a genuine pita for me but for you it did not exist. Unless of course the pain so pissed me off that I targeted you for abuse. Then the tree root (or its effects) penetrated the noosphere to a sufficient degree fro it to be relevant to you.

“Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute….�

Stop chasing tail and get back to the debate.

In order to die there has to be a ‘real’ existence. If the ‘individual self’ that is to die is a mental construct – did it really exist and can it really die.

[bernee51]

The universe might care about time, but time is still a component of it. The is regardless if there is an observer of time or not.

I was pondering our discussion on time when I came across this article in New Scientist.

Then low and hold I found another and then some more..

From the New Scientist artilce..."Newton and Leibniz debated this very point. Newton portrayed space and time as existing independently, while Rovelli and Brown share Leibniz's view that time and space exist only as properties of things and the relationships between them."

[Nameless]

So simple. By definition, if there can be no 'death', there can be no 'life'. Two sides of the same coin.