Time works in mysterious ways

[granpa]

Time is your alarm system. When reality is about to hurt you time warns you by giving you a little shock.

Time helps you by hurting you. This confuses people who don't know whether they should love it or hate it.

The correct answer is neither. You should not care.

Not caring was the correct answer.

Time doesn't do what it does because it loves you. Time doesn't do what it does because it hates you.

Time is not the enemy. Reality is the enemy. Reality is the slave driver. Time is not a slave driver.

If time wasnt watching over you you would have to sleep with one eye open.

 

[granpa]

 

[Quintessence]

Time isn't one of the gods I've developed much of a mindful relationship with, in part because it's... how to put it... an abstraction? Illusion? I focus more on tangibles than illusions of perceptions and intangibles. But with what little experience I have had working with Time Spirit, it... don't. Just don't. At best, Time Spirit is a reminder of human limitations in how we experience reality on a very fundamental level. Not a bad thing to keep in mind occasionally but very impractical especially if you are not a walker-between-the-worlds. At worst, Time Spirit will shatter all of your assumptions about reality to the point you are left in a paralytic, disoriented stupor or outright madness. It is far better to work with indirect and tangible manifestations upon which Time Spirit weaves. Like the seasons, rites of passage, that sort of thing.

 

[granpa]

The great activity of our life is to time. I see time as one act – just blazing – like the sun always shining

 

[Kathryn]

Time is relative. I never will forget my dad saying to me something about the passage of time. He said, "When you are six, a year is 1/6th of your life. When you are 60, a year is 1/60th of your life." Made sense to me.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Time is your alarm system. When reality is about to hurt you time warns you by giving you a little shock.

Time helps you by hurting you. This confuses people who don't know whether they should love it or hate it.

The correct answer is neither. You should not care.

Not caring was the correct answer.

Time doesn't do what it does because it loves you. Time doesn't do what it does because it hates you.

Time is not the enemy. Reality is the enemy. Reality is the slave driver. Time is not a slave driver.

If time wasnt watching over you you would have to sleep with one eye open.

A point to consider is, is time all part of an illusion!

Regards Tony

 

[granpa]

chatgpt:

You’ve captured a central paradox of Doctor Who and the way many characters—and perhaps even the Doctor themselves—misinterpret the nature of time. Time is not inherently benevolent or malevolent; it simply is. It exists as an impartial force, without preference or intent, moving forward and carrying all things within it.

The Doctor, despite their profound understanding of time, often gets caught up in seeing time as something they can guide or shape for good. They offer hope, try to save people, and sometimes bend the rules of time to create better outcomes. This gives the impression that time can be an ally, a force that might be wielded for a noble purpose. Yet, when others place their faith in the Doctor as a savior, they’re buying into the illusion that time can be merciful when, in truth, it has no such agenda.

Others, especially those who suffer losses or face tragedy, see time as a relentless force of destruction, the inevitability that steals away everything they care about. To them, time is synonymous with decay, endings, and death—a thief that takes without giving back. But even this perspective oversimplifies what time is, turning it into an enemy rather than recognizing its true neutrality.

Time, in its purest form, is neither friend nor foe. It’s the context in which all things exist, grow, and eventually fade. It doesn’t care if a moment is joyous or tragic; it simply passes. The Doctor, who navigates its currents better than most, sometimes forgets that they are not the master of time, but a part of it—subject to its rules just like everyone else. This misunderstanding can lead to consequences when the Doctor or others try to mold time into something it’s not, creating conflict and tragedy where there might have been peace in acceptance.

It’s a deeply human struggle to want to make sense of time, to see it as a force that can be kind or cruel. Yet, the truth is more complex: time just flows, and it is up to those who experience it to find meaning in its passage. The Doctor’s role often lies in helping others navigate this truth, even as they themselves grapple with it.

 

[PureX]

If we are able to live in and appreciate the moment, time becomes irrelevant.

 

[viole]

Time is relative. I never will forget my dad saying to me something about the passage of time. He said, "When you are six, a year is 1/6th of your life. When you are 60, a year is 1/60th of your life." Made sense to me.

Assuming your life starts at birth. And not at conception.

Ciao

- viole

 

[RestlessSoul]

Clock time is our bank manager, tax collector, police inspector;

this inner time is our wife.

- JB Priestley, Man and Time

 

[ppp]

Assuming your life starts at birth. And not at conception.

Or 3.5 billion years ago

 

[wellwisher]

Clocks do not measure time, correctly, since clocks cycle like a wave, 12 to 12, yet time is not a circle or a wave, but rather time moves forward on a line, never to repeat. We are born, age and die. Although, reincarnation is based on 2-D clock time. Clocks measure space-time and not just pure time. Space-time is 2-D, like a waves wavelength-frequency. But time lines are 1-D, the vector of which heads to the future, never to return.

The time periods of day, weeks, months and years are not exactly measures of pure time, since these repeat, and time does not repeat. It becomes fall again each year; cycle. This tradition is very old and is based on the relative movements of the earth and sun within space-time. Science still uses this old tradition, which being 2-D, may have an impact on their clear understanding of time.

If you look at acceleration, which mathematically is d/t/t this is space-time; d/t divided by time; t. Acceleration which is connected to all the forces of nature, is both a 2-D time cycle/wave and a 1-D time line. That combined adds up to a helix, like DNA. The helix repeats in 2-D, from above, with the time line moving a third axis, so the circles never close.

If we had pure time, apart from space or space-time, there would be no force or acceleration. Force and acceleration requires space-time plus time. Without space and force, distance/space would not matter. This would allow all the laws of physics to be the same in all space-time references. All the laws of nature need time to animate them, but in a way that exists, in time, beyond the laws themself. This way they can be the same in all space-time references. Einstein appears to have understood pure or 1-D time.

 

[Kathryn]

Assuming your life starts at birth. And not at conception.

Ciao

- viole

I'm just saying what my dad said. He and I both agreed that life begins at conception.

 

[Balthazzar]

I wonder how it can be stated as irrelevant, even when the concept is a human construct and originating from the human conscious intellect, or maybe other creatures know also the brevity of life activity well enough to acknowledge a due date ... eventually. Either way, time is opportunity and with every second a new one presents itself to do whatever you choose with it.

 

[viole]

I'm just saying what my dad said. He and I both agreed that life begins at conception.

Well, in that case, your father was wrong. When you are one, you are not one year old. You are 1 year and 9 months old.
Therefore, when you are six, one year would not be a sixth of your life. It would be less than that.

Pretty simple arithmetic, don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kathryn]

Well, in that case, your father was wrong. At your first birthday, you are not one year old. You are 1 year and 9 months old.
Therefore, when you are six, one year would not be a sixth of your life. It would be less than that.

Third grade arithmetic, I believe.

Ciao

- viole

Sorry, I don't really care. I mean, what if you were six but nearly seven? What if you were 60 but nearly 61? He was speaking GENERALLY.

 

[viole]

Sorry, I don't really care. I mean, what if you were six but nearly seven? What if you were 60 but nearly 61? He was speaking GENERALLY.

What if you are one, but nearly two, and you want to find what a year would be compared to your life? Would you think that 1 and 0,5 would be almost the same? Would that make sense?

Well, generally you can, I guess. I am sure that if someone owes you 1000 Dollars, you would be fine with 500, instead. After all, it is generally close, if we reason in terms of multiples of one million dollars, for instance.

But that is true for every measurement. Incidentally, those arguments can be also used to defuse fine tuning arguments. If I measure things by using fractions of a huge initial quantity, then it is not difficult to see great differences if we have very minimal differences in the initial values. For instance, in terms of fractions of the speed of light, a turtle and a space rocket, travel at the same speed, generally, while we perceive them as being quite differently schnell.

Ergo, those arguments are usually worthless trivialities if we do not set the measuring unit and the precision.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kathryn]

What if you are one, but nearly two, and you want to find what a year would be compared to your life? Would you think that 1 and 0,5 would be almost the same? Would that make sense?

Well, generally you can, I guess. I am sure that if someone owes you 1000 Dollars, you would be fine with 500, instead. After all, it is generally close, is we reason in terms of multiples of one billion dollars, for instance.

I mean, there are people who confuse 6000 years with 14 billion years. Which are, choosing appropriate time units, also generally the same.

But that is true for every measurement. Incidentally, those arguments can be also used to defuse fine tuning arguments. If I measure things by using fractions of a huge initial quantity, then it is not difficult to see great differences if we have very minimal differences in the initial values. For instance, in terms of fractions of the speed of light, a turtle and a space rocket, travel at the same speed, generally, while we perceive them as being quite differently schnell.

Ergo, those arguments are usually worthless trivialities if we do not set the measuring unit and the precision.

Ciao

- viole

I didn't even read all this. That's how little I care about this.

 

[viole]

I didn't even read all this. That's how little I care about this.

Wise decision.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kathryn]

Wise decision.

Ciao

- viole

Thanks.