There’s a lot there. So I’ll speak to part of it.

Again, 10,000 ft remains helpful here ✈️:

“You also say, on the one hand, that time is finite, and on the other hand, you seem to say it is unlimited, without border, timeless, immortal. I can’t reconcile this.”

Time is finite. But if you can put it into a perfect vacuum it lasts forever ♾️. That’s the idea.

There’s no creating more time or energy, there’s only the potential preservation of what is.

A small amount of “time” (near) perfectly preserved for a very long time (read: infinitely ♾️) is “something like immortality.”

^I chose those exact words carefully in my original message, and I stand by them.

We aren’t arguing semantics. Those are two very different distinctions.

🤝

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The concepts we use for time might be different. I think of it as a medium, the means of expressing, work or change. When you say it is finite, it seems to be more of an assertion than a proof. I don’t know the truth of it, but if I assume is is finite, then I get to prove different things with my deductions and observations than if I assume it is not.

Would a small amount of time be a duration wherein little change occurred? Or would it be some arbitrary quantity of a crystal’s vibrations? I think they are experienced very differently. An that experience makes them fundamentally different. I understand the world as change more than as time.

#bitcoin #asknostr

Ill be clear, I’m not a quantum physicist.

I suppose I should have said *as far as I can tell* time is finite.

“As far as I can tell is” is something like “truth that’s pragmatic and applicable.”

There’s plenty of theoretical truth that I have no interest in because it isn’t useful (that doesn’t make it untrue, it just makes it unproductive)

I’m not “assuming” truth is finite. *As far as I can tell* based on my lived, experiential reality, my time is running out 🕰️. That feels finite, and that’s enough for me to treat is as such.

🫡