Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does time actually exist?

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 11:49:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Take a scenario here. Let's say that, all at once, time began slowing until it was a crawl. What would happen? Well, every force acting on you would have to slow down as well. That means your bodily functions, the force of gravity, the rate at which the sun burned energy, and even your neurons. You would notice NOTHING. If only the area around you slowed down, your mind would slow with it. You would see the slowdown as normal speed, but everything else would become faster. The same goes for speeding up.

Now let's say that time began going backwards. Wouldn't you stop moving forward? Not really, because your awareness is simply the firing of neurons and those neurons are still trapped in the same pattern. In other words, the information or those neurons survives, and it wouldn't affect anything at all for you, since your entire life is contained in that information. This would be true even if time stopped entirely.

So I have to ask- how do you say that time is moving forward? If it makes no difference if times stops, why should we believe in "time" at all? Couldn't it just be an illusion brought on by our minds which are programmed to think of past, present, and future? It is possible, in my opinion, that time is simply a dimension. It does not "flow" or go forward, it simply is, and measurements like hours or years are not fundamentally different than inches or miles.

This view is called 'Eternalism', and don't bother looking it up because the Wikipedia page for it doesn't precisely seem to understand the concept (no surprise there). Any thoughts?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 11:53:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 11:52:15 AM, Koopin wrote:
At 9/28/2012 11:49:50 AM, MouthWash wrote:
That means your bodily functions,

Longer Orgasms?

Ah, but you would still receive the same number of endorphins, plus your brain would receive them at proportionally the same rate.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Anamerican
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 12:33:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 11:49:50 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Take a scenario here. Let's say that, all at once, time began slowing until it was a crawl. What would happen? Well, every force acting on you would have to slow down as well. That means your bodily functions, the force of gravity, the rate at which the sun burned energy, and even your neurons. You would notice NOTHING. If only the area around you slowed down, your mind would slow with it. You would see the slowdown as normal speed, but everything else would become faster. The same goes for speeding up.

Now let's say that time began going backwards. Wouldn't you stop moving forward? Not really, because your awareness is simply the firing of neurons and those neurons are still trapped in the same pattern. In other words, the information or those neurons survives, and it wouldn't affect anything at all for you, since your entire life is contained in that information. This would be true even if time stopped entirely.

So I have to ask- how do you say that time is moving forward? If it makes no difference if times stops, why should we believe in "time" at all? Couldn't it just be an illusion brought on by our minds which are programmed to think of past, present, and future? It is possible, in my opinion, that time is simply a dimension. It does not "flow" or go forward, it simply is, and measurements like hours or years are not fundamentally different than inches or miles.

This view is called 'Eternalism', and don't bother looking it up because the Wikipedia page for it doesn't precisely seem to understand the concept (no surprise there). Any thoughts?

Yes, time exists. In the example you gave, you aren't disproving time as a whole, you are just giving an example of how it can be subjective.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 12:37:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The only argument I've heard for time not existing is that at different times the various temporal qualities (past, present, future) will turn into different qualities i.e., the past is the past in the present but in the past it was the present and further past it was the future. The fact that these qualities continue to change at every instant could lend itself to the idea that time is merely a quality of our own mental projections on the world a la Kant.

I also read somewhere that present is all that exists. Past is simply our memory of past present states and the future is simply our expectations of future present states though I don't know what the arguments for that are.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 12:40:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 12:37:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The only argument I've heard for time not existing is that at different times the various temporal qualities (past, present, future) will turn into different qualities i.e., the past is the past in the present but in the past it was the present and further past it was the future. The fact that these qualities continue to change at every instant could lend itself to the idea that time is merely a quality of our own mental projections on the world a la Kant.

I also read somewhere that present is all that exists. Past is simply our memory of past present states and the future is simply our expectations of future present states though I don't know what the arguments for that are.

Or as Einstein said, time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 12:42:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 12:40:06 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:37:30 PM, socialpinko wrote:
The only argument I've heard for time not existing is that at different times the various temporal qualities (past, present, future) will turn into different qualities i.e., the past is the past in the present but in the past it was the present and further past it was the future. The fact that these qualities continue to change at every instant could lend itself to the idea that time is merely a quality of our own mental projections on the world a la Kant.

I also read somewhere that present is all that exists. Past is simply our memory of past present states and the future is simply our expectations of future present states though I don't know what the arguments for that are.

Or as Einstein said, time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once.

lol
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 12:45:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
the most accepted "proof" of time going forward is the law of entropy. The law of entropy states that things go from order to disorder, never the reverse. The theory is that the universal will eventually reach an equilibrium of a heat death of complete disorder.

Also time is relative. Time is not a universal constant in the universe, but depends on your velocity and position in space. GPS actually has to rely on the laws of time relativity to make sure that it keeps track of time accurately, since its time is going at a different rate than yours.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:10:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 12:45:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
the most accepted "proof" of time going forward is the law of entropy. The law of entropy states that things go from order to disorder, never the reverse. The theory is that the universal will eventually reach an equilibrium of a heat death of complete disorder.

I don't understand what that has to do with Eternalism.

Also time is relative. Time is not a universal constant in the universe, but depends on your velocity and position in space. GPS actually has to rely on the laws of time relativity to make sure that it keeps track of time accurately, since its time is going at a different rate than yours.

Interesting, although empirical evidence cannot trump rational evidence. You need to prove that time exists as something more than a perception logically.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:21:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Time as we understand it is irrelevant to what time actually is, which is space. The two are homologous properties of the universe. Slowing time or speeding up time or traveling back in time are all human abstractions. That's not really what time is or means. Distorting time would presumably distort space -- and by space, I'm not merely talking about "outer space," but space -- the place that contains mass.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:25:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 1:21:29 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Time as we understand it is irrelevant to what time actually is, which is space. The two are homologous properties of the universe. Slowing time or speeding up time or traveling back in time are all human abstractions. That's not really what time is or means. Distorting time would presumably distort space -- and by space, I'm not merely talking about "outer space," but space -- the place that contains mass.

Oh. So this time speed difference is compatible with Eternalism? I'm actually getting a bit confused here. If it were correct, would time simply not exist at all or would it be a dimension?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:28:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 1:10:57 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:45:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
the most accepted "proof" of time going forward is the law of entropy. The law of entropy states that things go from order to disorder, never the reverse. The theory is that the universal will eventually reach an equilibrium of a heat death of complete disorder.

I don't understand what that has to do with Eternalism.

That there is empirical proof that we are going "forward" in time.

Also time is relative. Time is not a universal constant in the universe, but depends on your velocity and position in space. GPS actually has to rely on the laws of time relativity to make sure that it keeps track of time accurately, since its time is going at a different rate than yours.

Interesting, although empirical evidence cannot trump rational evidence.

Seriously? You wouldn't believe anything with your own sense. What other way would you judge reality? If an experiment disproved your hypothesis, you'd say that "Rational evidence trumps empirical evidence". What deductive proof do you? None. Really can't prove much only using a priori knowledge.

You need to prove that time exists as something more than a perception logically.

Can you prove that anything is more than a perception logically? Your entire world could just be made up and your mind is in a jar.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 4:53:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 12:45:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
the most accepted "proof" of time going forward is the law of entropy. The law of entropy states that things go from order to disorder, never the reverse.

This is a common misconception. The law of entropy describes the movement of heat in an isolated system as going from high concentrations to low concentrations. It says nothing of "order or disorder".
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 5:05:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 4:53:27 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:45:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
the most accepted "proof" of time going forward is the law of entropy. The law of entropy states that things go from order to disorder, never the reverse.

This is a common misconception. The law of entropy describes the movement of heat in an isolated system as going from high concentrations to low concentrations. It says nothing of "order or disorder".

The law of entropy works in closed system and open system. Its just that entropy is always increasing. The total universal has entropy increasing, however the surrodnings or system can have entropy increased or decreased.

Describing entropy as disorder is the best layman's definition. I'm not going to use the theoretical definition of dQ/T.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 5:14:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And yes, entropy is disorder based on what scientists view disorder as. Disorder is based on the number of arrangments a system can have. The greater the arrangements, the greater the disorder. If you look at statistical thermodynamics, entropy increases disorder.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 6:34:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 4:28:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2012 1:10:57 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:45:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
the most accepted "proof" of time going forward is the law of entropy. The law of entropy states that things go from order to disorder, never the reverse. The theory is that the universal will eventually reach an equilibrium of a heat death of complete disorder.

I don't understand what that has to do with Eternalism.

That there is empirical proof that we are going "forward" in time.

Unless I'm missing something critical, I don't see any proof of that in what you've just said.

Also time is relative. Time is not a universal constant in the universe, but depends on your velocity and position in space. GPS actually has to rely on the laws of time relativity to make sure that it keeps track of time accurately, since its time is going at a different rate than yours.

Interesting, although empirical evidence cannot trump rational evidence.

Seriously? You wouldn't believe anything with your own sense. What other way would you judge reality? If an experiment disproved your hypothesis, you'd say that "Rational evidence trumps empirical evidence". What deductive proof do you? None. Really can't prove much only using a priori knowledge.

No, but there could be other causes that make "time" appear to slow down or speed up which are much more likely than time actually "going forward" which I consider to be extremely improbable from a purely logical standpoint.

You need to prove that time exists as something more than a perception logically.

Can you prove that anything is more than a perception logically? Your entire world could just be made up and your mind is in a jar.

No, I mean you need to explain the nature of "time" if you're going to assert it moves forward.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 6:52:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are a lot of physicists that think time does not exist, check it out.

http://discovermagazine.com...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

http://open.salon.com...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 9:32:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 11:49:50 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Take a scenario here. Let's say that, all at once, time began slowing until it was a crawl. What would happen? Well,

...it would take forever to see anything, for one thing.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 10:31:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I once heard a fascinating theory for why the arrow of time (time going backs versus forwards) can only go one way. Human thought is based on neural firing. If the biochemical signals of neural firing were to run backwards, the result would be a completely random static. Therefore, as long as we PERCEIVE time, it necessarily goes forward. But that does NOT mean time must go forward, but that we can only perceive reality if time goes forward.

So, time might do weird things even though we never see it do so.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 12:20:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 6:34:12 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 4:28:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2012 1:10:57 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:45:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
the most accepted "proof" of time going forward is the law of entropy. The law of entropy states that things go from order to disorder, never the reverse. The theory is that the universal will eventually reach an equilibrium of a heat death of complete disorder.

I don't understand what that has to do with Eternalism.

That there is empirical proof that we are going "forward" in time.

Unless I'm missing something critical, I don't see any proof of that in what you've just said.

You asked how do we know time is moving forward. Th answer, because the laws of physics would work differently If time was moving backwards. Pressure could go from low to high, not high to low. Temperature would move from a low gradient to a high gradient.

Also time is relative. Time is not a universal constant in the universe, but depends on your velocity and position in space. GPS actually has to rely on the laws of time relativity to make sure that it keeps track of time accurately, since its time is going at a different rate than yours.

Interesting, although empirical evidence cannot trump rational evidence.

Seriously? You wouldn't believe anything with your own sense. What other way would you judge reality? If an experiment disproved your hypothesis, you'd say that "Rational evidence trumps empirical evidence". What deductive proof do you? None. Really can't prove much only using a priori knowledge.

No, but there could be other causes that make "time" appear to slow down or speed up which are much more likely than time actually "going forward" which I consider to be extremely improbable from a purely logical standpoint.

You need to prove that time exists as something more than a perception logically.

Can you prove that anything is more than a perception logically? Your entire world could just be made up and your mind is in a jar.

No, I mean you need to explain the nature of "time" if you're going to assert it moves forward.

time is the medium in which change occurs. No time, objects can't move through space. If there is no change, there is no time.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 12:50:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Asking whether anything exists already takes into assumption basic fallacies that make a proper answer impossible.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 2:44:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 10:31:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
I once heard a fascinating theory for why the arrow of time (time going backs versus forwards) can only go one way. Human thought is based on neural firing. If the biochemical signals of neural firing were to run backwards, the result would be a completely random static. Therefore, as long as we PERCEIVE time, it necessarily goes forward. But that does NOT mean time must go forward, but that we can only perceive reality if time goes forward.

So, time might do weird things even though we never see it do so.

Interesting post and interesting OP.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 2:45:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 12:50:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Asking whether anything exists already takes into assumption basic fallacies that make a proper answer impossible.

I'm so glad I, nor most people, believe that. It makes everything incoherent and bizarre.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 3:34:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 2:45:49 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 9/29/2012 12:50:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Asking whether anything exists already takes into assumption basic fallacies that make a proper answer impossible.

I'm so glad I, nor most people, believe that. It makes everything incoherent and bizarre.

Any dismay that could come out of this understanding is rooted in the misinterpretation opposed to the idea out of the former that the value of a statement lies not in it's literal truth but in it's practical application and psychological effect.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 6:13:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 3:34:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:

Any dismay that could come out of this understanding is rooted in the misinterpretation opposed to the idea out of the former that the value of a statement lies not in it's literal truth but in it's practical application and psychological effect.

What you just said does not exist.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 6:49:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 11:52:15 AM, Koopin wrote:
At 9/28/2012 11:49:50 AM, MouthWash wrote:
That means your bodily functions,

Longer Orgasms?

Sounds good to me
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 7:17:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Be late 2 hours for work every day for a week and get back to me with this question. Time doesn't exist for those who have no life and have nothing better to do than discuss weather time exists. It is argument for the sake of argument. Then you will look at a clock and say or think it is "time" to do whatever it is that you have to do.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 8:15:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 10:31:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
I once heard a fascinating theory for why the arrow of time (time going backs versus forwards) can only go one way. Human thought is based on neural firing. If the biochemical signals of neural firing were to run backwards, the result would be a completely random static. Therefore, as long as we PERCEIVE time, it necessarily goes forward. But that does NOT mean time must go forward, but that we can only perceive reality if time goes forward.

So, time might do weird things even though we never see it do so.

No, our minds and consciousness are just information. That's all anything is, and since it is designed to perceive things going forward, that's exactly what it would do no matter what time did.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2012 8:29:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/29/2012 12:20:29 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2012 6:34:12 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 4:28:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2012 1:10:57 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:45:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
the most accepted "proof" of time going forward is the law of entropy. The law of entropy states that things go from order to disorder, never the reverse. The theory is that the universal will eventually reach an equilibrium of a heat death of complete disorder.

I don't understand what that has to do with Eternalism.

That there is empirical proof that we are going "forward" in time.

Unless I'm missing something critical, I don't see any proof of that in what you've just said.

You asked how do we know time is moving forward. Th answer, because the laws of physics would work differently If time was moving backwards. Pressure could go from low to high, not high to low. Temperature would move from a low gradient to a high gradient.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that if time worked backward we would see the things go backward? Because that's the most fallacious defining of time I've heard in a while (I've heard of nuts who say that the accelerating speed to technological progress is because time is running faster- they don't understand that time affects EVERYTHING, and thus they wouldn't even be able to notice if a month passed in a minute. Same for sci-fi writers who write about characters caught in time vortexes aging before their eyes, as if the time distortion would only affect their cells' growth and division rate. Stephen King, Katherine Applegate, and countless others are guilty of this).

Also time is relative. Time is not a universal constant in the universe, but depends on your velocity and position in space. GPS actually has to rely on the laws of time relativity to make sure that it keeps track of time accurately, since its time is going at a different rate than yours.

Interesting, although empirical evidence cannot trump rational evidence.

Seriously? You wouldn't believe anything with your own sense. What other way would you judge reality? If an experiment disproved your hypothesis, you'd say that "Rational evidence trumps empirical evidence". What deductive proof do you? None. Really can't prove much only using a priori knowledge.

No, but there could be other causes that make "time" appear to slow down or speed up which are much more likely than time actually "going forward" which I consider to be extremely improbable from a purely logical standpoint.

You need to prove that time exists as something more than a perception logically.

Can you prove that anything is more than a perception logically? Your entire world could just be made up and your mind is in a jar.

No, I mean you need to explain the nature of "time" if you're going to assert it moves forward.

time is the medium in which change occurs. No time, objects can't move through space. If there is no change, there is no time.

Have you even read the OP? The INFORMATION would still be there. Educate thyself: [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)