--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > Share, > > > > The physicist is making a bold statement there and she knows it. She's > > asking for a strong backlash when she said time existed even before the Big > > Bang. I can see the following questions coming up: Is Time the essence of > > God or vice-versa? Is there time in heaven or the unified field? Is there > > a prime mover or the cause of Time? What proof does she have to make such > > statements? > > > > JR > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > hey John I very much enjoyed this. Being a word person, was amazed to > > > learn that the word time is the noun that occurs most frequently. Also > > > her point about atomic clocks off earth running slower helped me > > > understand the role of gravity in relation to time. > > > > > > I wonder if there can be time if there is no one to perceive its > > > passage. Kind of like, if a tree falls in a forest empty of people, > > > does it make a sound. To that I say yes. Because of the physical > > > properties of trees and ground and sound waves. > > Although a falling object creates waves of energy that when they hit the ear > drum produce something we call "sound" I would have to say that if there are > no eardrums to receive the sound waves there is, in fact not sound. There is > only the potential for sound if there is the instrument (an ear drum) present > to have those waves impact it. There has to be a recipient in this case who > has the tools to transform waves into what he know as sound. (I think I just > repeated myself about three time. Does that mean there is an echo in here?)
Ann, I've thought the same way and I like your phrase "the potential for sound". For the sake of discussion, I'd like to step even further back and ask, "If a tree is *in* a forest, and there's nobody there to see or experience it, does it really exist?" I'm finding this line of reasoning helps to clarify my understanding of consciousness as the *potential* for existence, and that different parts of creation, through the tools that each has, interpret this potential in many different ways, hence the vast diversity of creation: a human turns the potential (is not relative) sound vibrations into a sound (now relative) through the tools of our ears. And if enlightenment is nothing more than the realization of the potential for all existence along with existence itself, then the question becomes, for me at least, for what reason? >  But thinking of time without space is for me like contemplating a zen > koan. Very fun. > > > > > > I was fascinated that she ended the talk with a reference to neuroscience > > > and how progress in that field may hold the key to our understanding time > > > itself. Thanks for posting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: John <jr_esq@> > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:51 PM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] There was Time Before the Big Bang But With No > > > Space > > > > > > > > >  > > > A German physicist said so. Is she right? > > > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACS1_5jyvHE > > > > > >
