Saturday, July 28, 2012

Change and Time

change and time:

what is time? there is time because there is change. as you are aware, time is measured by the cycles of days and years and it is assumed that it is valid to do so, that the concept of common time throughout this reality is real, that every bit of matter, everything that exists, moves in time together.

what is change? a different state in the same something that exists. i will avoid most of the philosophical debate as to whether something that changes can be considered the same thing. here are some words that may confuse the issue, fluid, infinitesimal, continuous, etc. the infinitesimal is a mathematical concept but i don't believe that it is a real one, in reality, i posit that the infinitesimally small does not exist. perhaps neither is real the idea that change could be somehow fluid or continuous. change could be discrete. a high definition television of 1920x1080 pixels may show a changing image that seems fluid and continuous but it is not, the mind is easily deceived here.

it is commonly held that time travel is generally impossible, but posit that past states of a bit of matter can be achieved again, that you can, in this sense, go back to the past exactly as it was and you can even go back to the state at the start of time. even if this may not be true, a similar state may be achieved.

what little is known about is how its neighbours affect change in a single bit of matter. what is obvious is the mimicking or copying effect. this is how we see an object appear to move across our field of vision. a change in image or state is passed on to the neighbour. after a lot of change in a bit of matter, perhaps it can be brought back too by its neighbour who has not changed or changed very little.

on another note, what of change and death? well, we must define what death is, first of all. originally, it was a word associated with a nebulous dread and a vague sense of "the end of it all". on earth it means the end of a life on earth or quitting the world of earth. if we apply the word to change, does change not mean the death of a bit of matter from what it once was? is time not then constant death? rule out the concept that something that exists, that has "mass" or substance, can cease to exist in any shape or form, become nothing, lose "mass" or substance. this is a slippery slope! only that, yes, it could cease to exist only in the sense that its state has changed. much thinking is all skewed in the vague feeling that we have all "died" long ago and ongoing change towards something very different is inevitable and that we can never recover what once was. but i have just posited that exact states can be regained, we can bring the "dead" back to life! on the other hand, what if change were something very "difficult", that a return to the starting position were inevitable, that the "gravity" exerted by the start of time position were altogether too strong, that we could be imagined as a statue in equilibrium, that we could never really move about too much? of course, these are extremes, but either or both could be relatively true at the same time for different parts of reality!


No comments:

Post a Comment