∆-5 'Timelessness' is not a 'theory'.




Timelessness not a 'theory'...

According to the kindle Oxford English dictionary; A Theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Sir Issac Newton made a lot of observations and calculations that helped explain mathematically very precisely what the effects of gravity were. But the did not put forward a theory trying to explain what gravity was, or how it worked. Albert Einsteins General relativity is a theory, that explains Newtons observations. 

In this sense 'Timelessness' is not a theory. It is a set of direct observations. Which when logically connected show that the world around us really is just as it appears, and nothing extra about it is 'theorised'.

So the observations in the book are similar to the observation that when you let a dense object go, anywhere on Earth, it will tend to be pulled towards the Earth itself. You can demonstrate and test this observation any way and anywhere you want. In effect every grain of sand on every beach, and every drop of water on the planet constantly prove it to be true everywhere on the planet.

That 'objects fall to earth' is a direct observation, the idea that they do this because of 'Gravity' is a theory. That 'objects exist, move, and interact' is also just a direct observation - and essentially all that 'Timelessness' is saying.  

xxxxx


time is a theory that tries to fill a gap that i don't think exists. 
timelessness just explains what is observed. it does not explain where matter and energy came from or may go to .
even the idea that the universe may end in a completely spread out  'heat death' doesn't suggest things disappear (in to no where) - so why suspect they 'appear' from no where,particularly when you consider that we never have personal experience that things do appear or disappear. Only that they appear and disappear from out general personal awareness - the concepts that things ever 'appear and disappear' may just be invalid human ideas.

TIME

That "objects exist, move, and interact... 'in' a thing called 'Time' " is a theory. because 'Time' is given as the name of some extra and unseen thing that is said to enable things to move, or created as things move (or any other variation of the theory of time you want to consider). 

this might sound like semantic trickery, it doesn't really matter what we call time, or timelessness, the question is which one is the correct explanation for the world around us.

the fact that timelessness is not a theory is highlighted to also show that while many people seem to just accept that Time exists - in fact time is just a theory. it may be a very well established theory, it may even be correct and my observations may be flawed, but non the less its not scientific to just assume that something apparently so ethereal 'just' exists. 

Comments