49 Days to reincarnate? Evolutionary Time Droplets–> a 260 Day Tzolkin Gestational Seed?

As I said in the previous post:

To measure time is merely to count the peaks
of a spatial oscillation.
—-

There is no way of knowing whether any time occurrence
as we see it has any higher dimensional significance.
You can start your time measurement at any initial point
and any final point to get an elapsed time–it is only your
mind that has chosen to pick an initial time and a final time
as significant due to some perceived importance, or some attempt
to discretize what is naturally a continuous phenomenon.

For instance, in your 260 day gestation cycle, what is
so special about a “day”. It is merely a peak of spatial
oscillation. There are others. The counting of other spatial
oscillations may show no significance. If you consider all
possible spatial oscillations, the best you can say is that you
have an event with a finite discrete time lapse.

OK, big deal. There are a lot of things with a finite discrete time
lapse. The time it takes day to turn to night and back again due
the Earth rotation for instance–there are many others. Moreover,
the only reason why we even have an apparent discrete time lapse
is because we have (arbitrarily) decided to attribute meaning to
a particular spatial oscillation. That’s it.

As for something being special because the number of oscillations
happens to be a multiple of another is mere coincidence. You can
always pick your spatial oscillation counter so that this can happen,
especially if you are somewhat imprecise on the time axis.

Once more, if you pick some discrete amount of elapsed time for some
event–again the beginning and ending are somewhat arbitrary, only
really chosen by your mind–and you ask if this caused by some 4-D spark,
then you are asking an unknowable question. It is like being in a sealed
train car traveling on a railroad track with perfectly smooth shocks and
asking if the train is in motion. Are we still? Are we moving? If we
are moving in relation to the outside, what is moving us? Is some outside
event causing us to move or to be still? Answer to all of these is that
it is impossible to know.

Of course, this previous paragraph is really just to humor you, because
everything is a continuous process. You can’t discretize. It is only
an artifact of the mind. It’s like being in a pitch black room, lighting
a candle, and asking if it is still dark. It still is, so you light another
one. You keep lighting candles. How many candles does it take before the
room is no longer classified as being dark? 69? 70? If 69 is still dark, and
70 is not dark, what is the significance of the 70th candle? Can you pinpoint
the exact moment when it changes from dark to light? You see: it is just
an arbitrary assignment by the mind.

Thus my comment in the previous post has more content than
you previously considered:

To measure time is merely to count the peaks
of a spatial oscillation.

In other words, you can measure time–a bizarre notion in itself–but
any observable “event” that has an apparent “start” and “end” is purely
a construct of the mind. Nothing has a sharp start and a sharp end
really once you strip away prejudices of the mind. Once you realize that
then you realize that there really isn’t anything that can even be considered
“an event”.

All there is is change, and the mind’s attempt to take frozen snapshots
to try to view the continuum as a broken disjointed sequence of happenings,
as opposed to the continuous uninterrupted flow that it is.

Steven

I understand your point quite well . . .

“Complete” is a mental fabrication.
Beginning and ending are purely constructs of the mind; there
is no discretization.

In fact, I’ve already answered your question.
Go back and reread my posts and meditate on them.

If you still don’t get it, then let me make things simple for you:
the answer is NO.

S

It’s an oscillation–nothing more. Your brain is trying
to make something out of nothing. What you are seeing
is JUST change, that’s it–that’s all it ever was.

Things aren’t so damn complicated as you’re making them.
They are quite simple actually.

You need to sit and meditate on the nature of time, because
with all due respect, you don’t understand it all.

S

You can make a calendar of almost any number of days and then
using simple mathematics create a sieve where you can use
it as an almanac. This is not hard to do.

Why not use 130 days instead of 260? You can create the
same predictions just by doubling up for instance.

Or since we have 10 fingers, why not just use 13?
All predictions are just a tenfold increase;
moreover 13 IS A PRIME! Ooh boy. Lets make a calendar
of 13 day-weeks. Then 28 of these weeks form 364 days, and
we can call the remaining day, a HOLY DAY, or something.
Then using different clever manipulations I can use this
calendar for various predictions also. Big deal.

The measurement is not important.

All there is is change. There is nothing more.

Trying to discretize time into some block–or set of blocks–is just a
pathetic attempt to try to create a fixed snapshot of
something that is in a continuous unrelenting flow.

Or is the simple idea of continuous unrelenting change
without fixed blocks too horrifying a concept?

S