geordief

I wonder if that is an absolutely universal trait?Are there any individuals who do not have this sense of themselves as a separate entity? If those people do not exist then can we view it as some kind of an instinctual reflex connected to the need to survive as an individual in the first instance? Do plants have mechanisms whereby their survival is favoured at the expense of others.? Could that be considered as "awareness of the self"?

Unless https://www.flashlyrics.com/lyrics/jim-morrison-music-by-the-doors/stoned-immaculate-58 "Out here in the perimeter There are no stars, Out here we is stoned Immaculate." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePxeGDnZpKQ&list=RDePxeGDnZpKQ&start_radio=1&rv=ePxeGDnZpKQ&t=6

Do you mean "is there a smallest possible size?" I think I have read an answer to that as "we don't know" Is it possible that the theory of an infinite number of parallel universes might be talking about "virtual" parallel universes?(so they never become real,they always recombine to one outcome)

I thought I had heard that we don't know that I wonder ,though whether the uncertainty principle might apply to space and time whereby the more precise a measurement of a temporal location is made the less precise a measure of spatial location is measured

It has to process the input from the sensors. Is that different to perceiving?

The human body clock has to perceive changes in brightness,doesn't it? It must have sensors in the body to facilitate the perception.(the eyes,I expect) And the first living creatures developed sensors too I may have heard.

The one-step change would have to have its context. Maybe that would provide a concept of quantifiable time whereas the one-step change would be less significant.(in practice I can't see any sentient being being aware of a one-step change without a context in the background) I wonder what would be the most primitive creatures with a body clock or equivalent. Does ,for example a virus measure time in any sense?

If "GMT" is refined to represent just one event at one location and time in Greenwich,and that event is non-composite(something perhaps like the decay of a single particle or -if such exists-a single quantum fluctuation) could it be said that ,in its own frame of reference only that a point called zero could be identified(but not measured)? Maybe it would have to be a sequence of changes,not just a binary one.(connecting the dots )

Does "absolute" mean the opposite of "defined relatively" in this context? The same (or closely related) idea as that there is no preferred frame of reference in relativity?

I can't suggest how to measure it but my idea is that the "nows"(or "thens) are everywhere with one to each fleeting frame of reference. I don't think we can just say that "now does not exist"(even if for a sentient entity that "now" is incredibly composite and inferred). All the "nows" have to be related and no one "now" is any different from another "now" as far as I can see. They are only "now" in their own frame of reference and their duration (what could be measured) is perhaps non existent except insofar as their relationships with neighbouring "nows" can be quantified. Yes GPS does stand out (ie the conceptual breakthrough of the space'time continuum) but I do wonder if there nay have been other conceptual breakthroughs in the past What,I wonder might have been the first perception that gave rise to the concept of time for example? Or is a concept of time just hardwired into existence including sentient existence?

@Genady (can't get the quote function to work) ,I used "appreciate" as "understand" sounded too final ,too presumptuous. Otherwise ,you can only think of that one instance?Me too. If its practical impact was so strong then that seems to me that we have a kind of Sigma 5 discovery on our hands and ,to date that is probably where our correct understanding of the nature of time lies. Not that we will ever stop asking this question ,I suspect and presumably we should expect further enlightenment if and when we make progress on quantum gravity.

Are there any instances in the history of science where a change in appreciation of the nature of time has given rise to a significant advance in the realm of practical technological achievement? If there is might that indicate that the new appreciation of the phenomenon of time was superior to the old (if only in terms of probability)? Would the instance that stands out be the Minkowski spacetime model? I don't include the greater and greater precision in timekeeping that has occured down the ages** as an example .I mean a change in appreciation of the concept. **the latest interpretation of the animals in cave drawings as applied to the "hunting seasons" and very recently published is fascinating. https://www.livescience.com/ice-age-cave-art-proto-writing-claim

Aesop rocks😀

Could the Dems nominate someone else for giggles to take even more advantage of and draw attention to the Reps' discomforture? Ivanka?

How important is the speakership to the Reps if they have a majority anyway? Could they even let the Dems have the post so long as they could exercise power through that majority? (Edit: if they cannot unite on this issue is that disunity going to dog them all the way even after this issue is resolved?)

I thought I saw a rock formation in there somehow (with contours). Also thought I saw the pattern of a fly's eye(or a wasp's honeycombed nest. It is a really nice photo.

If those are the historical precedents,why should this time be much different? Consensus seems to be a dirty word these days and everyone seems to play the game for their own reward and at others' expense. Who,I wonder loses out if this drags on?Do they all think they are winners?

Because "they" may be turn out to be very simple .The approach** may be very confusing but there may be the possibility that the fog will clear ,the solutions will be relatively simple and we will have to go back to wondering about questions that affect us at the macro (and all other) levels -for the rest of our times. **as in the roads leading up to them.

Do any of the photons have a "direction" or is the direction only revealed when they impact another object such as gib65's eye? Suppose at any particular instant there was a finite (N) number of photons emitted from the star and all of those N photons improbably impacted objects that were NOT gib65's eye,would the star be invisible to gib65 for that brief period (taking into account the time for the photons to travel as far as gib65)?

I had more or less the exact same (mis) understanding as @gib65 If you are right I feel even less smart now😕

Does your "stream bed" work as well as an analogy if there is no top and bottom no rocks to cause perturbations ,no gravity and if the various independent flows through the "stream" simply interact with each other? Would "particles"/perturbations be formed the same way? And would one perturbation lead to a cascade of other perturbations? I am imagining an infinite number of very small streams,interacting with each other .

I have a vague memory of them being skinned first and then parboiled to remove the membrane. In aid of what? Probably they were pureed but I can't remember now. I bought some chestnuts a few years back (and I have an open fire) They sat unused for a whole year before I got around to throwing them out. Didn't even plant any in the ground to replace the chestnut tree that died 20 years ago.

Thanks

I think I have heard it said( a few times) that fhor an object entering (the EH?) of a black hole that space and time are reversed. Is that correct? If that is indeed what is said then (here we go again?) is this just saying that this is what the model does and the actual body notices no change?

We have millennia ahead of us to occupy our minds.We would be pretty stupid if we didn't attempt to answer questions like that (and others) At the present time though the priority must be to ensure we don't trash our planetary home for our future, and present generations