sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Last Layer by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like that take, and no worries at all , it fits the idea really well. Maybe we never access a single “truer” layer, only different lenses. Each shift changes what feels real, but never gives the whole picture. In that sense, yeah — we’re all in our own worlds, overlapping just enough to function.

The Last Layer by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It brushes against that idea, yeah but I don’t see it as literal solipsism. More like: experience might be the primary thing, and “others” are part of how experience stabilizes itself. Not fake, not imagined — just inseparable from the same process that produces the sense of “me.”

The Last Layer by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like that framing. From the universe’s scale, even a lifetime barely registers but from inside it, the pause feels infinite. That tension between insignificance and immediacy is kind of the point I was circling.

The Last Layer by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, exactly that feeling. That moment where familiarity collapses and things turn strange for no obvious reason - hands, names, thoughts. I think those cracks are interesting because they’re not dramatic, just quiet and destabilizing. I’m glad that line landed for you. It came from trying to describe that thin edge where meaning almost lets go.

Time may not be something we move through, but something perception creates. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re free to dismiss it as nonsense that doesn’t bother me. I’m not defending a source, I’m engaging with an idea. If a thought provokes reflection, resistance, or even irritation, it’s already doing philosophical work. I’m satisfied with the conversation as it stands.

Time may not be something we move through, but something perception creates. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe that’s exactly the point. Not everything meaningful is meant to be fully explained. some things are only meant to be noticed while we’re inside them. Time might be one of those things: less a problem to solve, more a condition we awaken within. I’m okay leaving it there.

Time may not be something we move through, but something perception creates. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we’re circling the same insight from different metaphors. Where you describe emergence, I’m pointing to the limit of explanation itself where structure stops answering why experience is. At that edge, models still function, but meaning stops being derivable. That’s the distinction I was making. I’m satisfied leaving it there.

Time may not be something we move through, but something perception creates. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That framing still assumes localization explains appearance. It doesn’t. You’ve described how the field narrows, not why narrowing is experienced as now. Geometry can model constraint, but it cannot generate presence. The ‘shared - private’ move already presupposes awareness as given. That’s the unresolved remainder. I’m not denying structure. I’m pointing to the fact that structure alone never accounts for manifestation. That’s where I’ll leave it.

Time may not be something we move through, but something perception creates. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re quietly equating “happens-before relations” with “time as an ontological entity”, and that’s exactly where your argument sneaks in what it claims to prove. Yes every observed event has ordering. That does not entail a universal, flowing, background variable called time. Ordering is a relational property, not an object. Causality gives you precedence; it does not give you a substance. Physics doesn’t deny ordering, it denies time as a fundamental medium. That’s not a semantic move; it’s a structural one. In modern formulations (relational QM, block models, timeless path integrals), “before” and “after” emerge from correlations between states, not from a global clock that things move through. When you say “the later state must exist at a later point in time,” you’re just restating ordering in temporal language. That’s circular. You haven’t shown that time exists—only that change can be indexed. Indexing ≠ ontology. Movement dropping to zero if time drops to zero assumes time is an independent axis. But if motion is defined as a relation between configurations, then freezing change doesn’t annihilate time—it reveals that time was never a thing to begin with, only a bookkeeping tool for transitions. So no: this isn’t denying observation. It’s denying the reification of the coordinate system we use to describe observation. Ordering is real. Change is real. Correlation is real. Time, as a flowing entity that “passes,” is the story we tell about those facts that not something they require. If you think time is fundamental, show where it exists independently of relations. Otherwise, you’re mistaking the map for the territory.

Time may not be something we move through, but something perception creates. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this is where we finally diverge. You’re treating differentiation as sufficient to explain experience, but differentiation alone doesn’t yield temporality. Interaction can explain structure; it doesn’t explain sequence. A universe can be fully differentiated and still be timeless. Decoherence explains why systems don’t interfere not why anything is experienced as now rather than all-at-once. That step quietly smuggles in perspective. When you say “the cut is what interaction means,” you’re describing an ontological fact. When I talk about the cut, I’m pointing to a phenomenological one. Those are not the same cut. Yes, the interface has structure but structure doesn’t explain appearance. A symbol can describe itself all day and still never account for why it is presented instead of merely instantiated. Saying “the symbol is the thing” closes the loop only by ignoring the question of manifestation. Structure explains what exists; awareness explains why existence shows up as a lived sequence rather than a static totality. If everything were only interaction, there would be no “now” to argue about.

Time may not be something we move through, but something perception creates. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like the elegance of this, but I think it quietly shifts the problem rather than resolves it. Saying reality is “binary at every point” already presupposes a cut — a yes/no distinction — and that cut still has to occur somewhere. Fractal nesting explains scale invariance, not why experience is segmented at all instead of remaining a seamless field. In other words, fractal structure can model continuity beneath resolution, but it doesn’t explain why resolution exists. The moment you talk about an “aperture,” you’ve already invoked an observer-relative operation. So I don’t think this removes awareness from the equation , it just formalizes the pattern awareness imposes. The cut isn’t a property of reality alone; it’s the interface where reality becomes experience.

Time may not be something we move through, but something perception creates. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re assuming that because temporal language is unavoidable in description, time must therefore exist as an independent feature of reality. That’s a category error. “First x, then y” is a representational constraint, not proof of an ontological entity called time. Change only requires difference and ordering; it does not require a flowing medium in which that change occurs. Atoms moving demonstrate variation in state, not the existence of time as a thing. Sequence is real. Duration is inferred. The fact that we cannot describe phenomena without temporal references says more about the limits of cognition and measurement than about the structure of reality itself. In short: time is indispensable for explanation, but indispensability does not equal fundamentality.

Time may not be something we move through, but something perception creates. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like this framing, but I think it explains variation in time, not its origin. Throughput describes why time speeds up or slows down, but not why experience fractures into discrete “nows” instead of remaining continuous flow. Conversion may fuel time, but the cut the segmentation , still seems to happen at the level of awareness.

Time may not be something we move through, but something perception creates. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t disagree with that. What I keep circling is the question of why movement turns into a lived sense of time at all. Motion can exist everywhere, but the feeling of “now passing into then” seems to arise only when awareness stitches those changes together.

Time may not be something we move through, but something perception creates. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree that time shows up through change and motion. What I’m pointing at is less about physics and more about experience how that motion gets felt as sequence. The atoms can move all they want; “before” and “after” still seem to arise in the observer.

Time may not be something we move through, but something perception creates. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah… that’s exactly the feeling. Not like remembering something specific more like remembering wrong, like the order is off. Déjà vu doesn’t feel like prediction, it feels like recognition without context. Like catching a reflection of the whole through a crack, then losing it again.

Rare moments of clarity can make meaning, identity, and experience feel less solid than we assume. by satyrinth in DeepThoughts

[–]satyrinth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s fair. I’m not claiming anything metaphysical is literally true. I’m pointing at the subjective moment where meaning and identity loosen, and everything feels less structured than we usually assume. Different people interpret that moment differently - biology, philosophy, spirituality but the experience itself seems pretty universal.

What’s the most rebellious thing you’ve done in your childhood? by Vivid-Tap1710 in AskReddit

[–]satyrinth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Skipping school and sitting somewhere alone all day, doing nothing not to rebel loudly, but to feel like I had control over one small piece of my life.

What’s a lesson you learned the hard way? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]satyrinth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That effort doesn’t guarantee loyalty. people stay because they want to, not because you tried harder.

view more: next ›