God, Eternity, and Existence

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

mark noble
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 06:34 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;164767 wrote:
I've argued that man is time. But not physics time. Or rather physics time is just one way abstraction in a family of related abstractions. Is time movement? I don't think that movement is a primary definition of time. Wihtout memory or desire, past and future experienced "subjectively",there is no "time," which is a human abstraction. When we are absorbed in a great moment, we don't think in terms of time. We are "present" but we don't need to think "I am present." Or if we are daydreaming about the future, this is an example of human time that is not physics time.

I find it questionable that we tend to talk of time only in spatial and numerical terms, neglecting the element of memory, desire, language. It may be that physical science advances by ignoring the observer. F =ma says nothing explicitly about the species that uses it. Where is the user in all this? Do we forget that change is also an abstraction? The intelligible structure of the world is made of language as much as anything.

Science is great, but its implicit metaphysics is not the end of philosophy, IMO.


Hello,

I am truly grateful for your perspective on this. primary time is beyond the human perspective and therefore redundant to the applications we apply it to.

Thank you sir, and journey well.

Mark...
 
Neil D
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 08:33 pm
@mark noble,
In M-Theory, they talk about a multiverse. An infinite number of universes existing in what they refer to as "the bulk". Time and space would be finite for each universe. But for the bulk it would be infinite and eternal. The bulk is what the universe is expanding into.

Perhaps the bulk is just another name for more space. And in the end the answer is that space has no boundaries, no beginning, no end. And time is as eternal as the infinity of space.

Just a thought.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 16 May, 2010 10:46 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;164891 wrote:
Hello,

I am truly grateful for your perspective on this. primary time is beyond the human perspective and therefore redundant to the applications we apply it to.

Thank you sir, and journey well.

Mark...


Thanks for the friendly spirit. I must say I don't entirely understand your reply. Care to phrase it differently?
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 05:26 am
@Neil D,
Neil;165109 wrote:
In M-Theory, they talk about a multiverse. An infinite number of universes existing in what they refer to as "the bulk". Time and space would be finite for each universe. But for the bulk it would be infinite and eternal. The bulk is what the universe is expanding into.

Perhaps the bulk is just another name for more space. And in the end the answer is that space has no boundaries, no beginning, no end. And time is as eternal as the infinity of space.

Just a thought.


Hi Neil. Imagine every frame of occurence to-date in this (our known) universe. And imagine that each frame still exists (but is beyond the perception of that which supercedes it (ultimately, a new entire universe per-frame). And each of these universes continues linearly into the next event, and so on. Now, reduce the immense size of our universe (perceived by us (within) as immense) into the subatomic. It forms a fractilian representation of its own periodic table. A table only definable by the universe IT obliges. Infinite interiors and infinite exteriors.
So M-theory has a valid place in things, but is not limited by any boundary of beginning or end.

Hope you understand me. It is difficult to explain, but those who do understand it truly do exceed its' parameters.

Thank you Neil, and journey brilliantly.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 12:40 PM ----------

Reconstructo;165176 wrote:
Thanks for the friendly spirit. I must say I don't entirely understand your reply. Care to phrase it differently?


Hi Reconstructo,

Our measurement of time is relative to us, and us alone. We measure it by observeable criteria in relation to the earth's rotary motion around the sun. I call this "Human-time". Real-time takes place at a level far beyond the scope of our perception, far beyond, indeed. Human-time is a limited perspective, governed by our inability to perceive beyond the speed of light, itself only a series of slow-motion events in a much faster timeline, and so on.

I hope this is more understandable reply.

Thank you, and live magnificently.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 05:45 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;165176 wrote:
Thanks for the friendly spirit. I must say I don't entirely understand your reply. Care to phrase it differently?


Just as long as your spirit is friendly, I think it is churlish to complain about your not saying anything comprehensible. What is this forum coming to? No one complains about Reconstucto about uttering nonsense.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 06:39 am
@kennethamy,
Hello all,

How does one climb to the top of a ladder, if not one rung at a time? Just because certain folk want all the information that is gained by reaching the top, doesn't mean they don't have to gather the less significant information from each ascending rung.

Ken, you tend to read the book's ending first and ignore the chapters in-between, because the result is what you require. you can't turn the light on until all the points in the circuit are linked.

Thank you Ken, and journey brilliantly, sir.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 06:57 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;165261 wrote:
Hello all,

How does one climb to the top of a ladder, if not one rung at a time? Just because certain folk want all the information that is gained by reaching the top, doesn't mean they don't have to gather the less significant information from each ascending rung.

Ken, you tend to read the book's ending first and ignore the chapters in-between, because the result is what you require. you can't turn the light on until all the points in the circuit are linked.

Thank you Ken, and journey brilliantly, sir.

Mark...


What book is it you are talking about? There are some books I am not interested in reading, and some ladders I don't want to climb. In any case, nonsense is still nonsense from whatever angle you look at it. So, putting nonsense differently won't help.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 07:22 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165267 wrote:
What book is it you are talking about? There are some books I am not interested in reading, and some ladders I don't want to climb. In any case, nonsense is still nonsense from whatever angle you look at it. So, putting nonsense differently won't help.


Hi Ken,

Why do you pay so much attention to such nonsense then?
If you don't understand me, just ignore me.

After all, "One man's logical is another man's irrational", is it not?
There's no need to keep attacking my opinions though, is there?

Many others completely understand me, even if you don't.

This is the philosophy forum, after all, not the Kennethamy forum, remember.

I do enjoy your opinions though, Ken. Those which I can fathom, that is.

Thank you Ken, and adventure to the max.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 07:36 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;165277 wrote:
Hi Ken,



After all, "One man's logical is another man's irrational", is it not?


Mark...


Of course not! Wherever could you have got such an idea? You think that someone who argues that since all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is immortal could possibly be logical? That cliche' is nearly as pernicious as the cliche' that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And just as idiotic.

As for why I pay attention to nonsense, the answer is I do because it is nonsense. One of the salient jobs of philosophizing is to pick out nonsense, and show why it is nonsense. Some philosophers (so-called) produce nonsense as a kind of cottage industry. It is a large part of the job of the philosopher to uncloud the minds of those whose minds have been clouded and even dimmed by philosophical nonsense. They also serve who sanitize.

"My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense." (464) Wittgenstein
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 08:29 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165282 wrote:
Of course not! Wherever could you have got such an idea? You think that someone who argues that since all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is immortal could possibly be logical? That cliche' is nearly as pernicious as the cliche' that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And just as idiotic.

As for why I pay attention to nonsense, the answer is I do because it is nonsense. One of the salient jobs of philosophizing is to pick out nonsense, and show why it is nonsense. Some philosophers (so-called) produce nonsense as a kind of cottage industry. It is a large part of the job of the philosopher to uncloud the minds of those whose minds have been clouded and even dimmed by philosophical nonsense. They also serve who sanitize.

"My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense." (464) Wittgenstein


Hiya Ken,

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" Absolutely!
To have a single perspective is single-minded, to say the least.

There is always a contrary view (From the other side of the fence). I happen to sit mainly on said fence, and can understand this. You are clearly confined to one side.
Socrates, like Christ, IS immortal to those who deem them so. You quote him enough, don't you? Does he not live on in you, in part?

As for (policing nonsense), That's a tad obsessive, I think. Especially when it is not nonsense to me, nor intended to confuse anyone else.

You are not my mentor, Ken, nor am I your pupil. so stop nitpicking every element of my discourses.
I don't see why YOUR view is required to be THE view. It isn't mine. Indeed, if we all thought the same way about things, there would be no need to discuss anything. How boring do you think that would be? There are many realms to be discovered Ken, don't shut the door on them, because they don't make sense to you. I only give my opinion, as you know, and if you don't like the program? switch it off.

Anyway, I don't want to babble on (From Babel, that originates - Freebie) about Who's right or wrong, because we both are, so I'll leave you to your thoughts, and bid you fare well.

Thank you Ken, and thrive beautifully, sir.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 08:55 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;165291 wrote:
Hiya Ken,

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" Absolutely!
To have a single perspective is single-minded, to say the least.


Mark...


It is possible, of course, for someone to be both a terrorist and (at least according to him) a freedom fighter. That is because terrorism is a tactic, a means, but freedom (or what is usually meant, "independence" since most of these people would not know what freedom was if they tripped on it at high noon) is a goal. So it is certainly possible to use the tactic of terrorism in order to gain the goal of freedom (independence). But, of course, that does not make freedom fighting and terrorism the same thing, with the difference being only in the attitude toward it. An Islamo-fascist who blows up a school bus, and murders a lot of innocent children, is a terrorists whatever your attitude is. Of course, he may think he is doing it to win some political goal, and he may also think that he is a freedom fighter. Maybe he is. But he is still a terrorist, and a despicable murderer. Saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is like saying that one woman's starvation diet is another woman's weight loss program. A woman can starve herself to lose weight, but starvation is not simply weight reduction from a different point of view.

"Some people would rather die than think. And, in fact, some do". Bertrand Russell
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 09:52 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165302 wrote:
It is possible, of course, for someone to be both a terrorist and (at least according to him) a freedom fighter. That is because terrorism is a tactic, a means, but freedom (or what is usually meant, "independence" since most of these people would not know what freedom was if they tripped on it at high noon) is a goal. So it is certainly possible to use the tactic of terrorism in order to gain the goal of freedom (independence). But, of course, that does not make freedom fighting and terrorism the same thing, with the difference being only in the attitude toward it. An Islamo-fascist who blows up a school bus, and murders a lot of innocent children, is a terrorists whatever your attitude is. Of course, he may think he is doing it to win some political goal, and he may also think that he is a freedom fighter. Maybe he is. But he is still a terrorist, and a despicable murderer. Saying that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is like saying that one woman's starvation diet is another woman's weight loss program. A woman can starve herself to lose weight, but starvation is not simply weight reduction from a different point of view.

"Some people would rather die than think. And, in fact, some do". Bertrand Russell


Hi Ken,

That's the Ken I like (thinking Ken)! Now - when Baghdad was strip -bombed and innocent people hid beneath their beds, watching their families melt and burn. What do you think their label for the allies was "Terrorist" or "Freedom-fighter"? And, in return, those families walk in to a military-base and explode themselves, to vent the same "Terrorists" or "Freedom-fighters". Me, I just see both sides, Ken. I don't agree with the harming of others - Period. But, I do understand why.

Just to simplify - If you stand facing me - My left is your right. Agree?
If I am in the Northern hemisphere - The earth turns Anticlockwise - In Southern - Clockwise. Agree?

Thank you Thinking Ken, be fantastic, sir.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 10:22 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;165330 wrote:
Hi Ken,

Now - when Baghdad was strip -bombed and innocent people hid beneath their beds, watching their families melt and burn. What do you think their label for the allies was "Terrorist" or "Freedom-fighter"? And, in return, those families walk in to a military-base and explode themselves, to vent the same "Terrorists" or "Freedom-fighters".

Just to simplify - If you stand facing me - My left is your right. Agree?
If I am in the Northern hemisphere - The earth turns Anticlockwise - In Southern - Clockwise. Agree?

Thank you Thinking Ken, be fantastic, sir.

Mark...


What I don't get is whatever the answer to your conundrum about what happened in Baghdad is, what would it have to do with whether some one who intentionally blows up a school bus full of innocent children is a terrorist (and a despicable fellow to boot)? Nothing that I can see. Maybe both cases are cases of terrorism. Maybe one is one, and the other is not. Whatever is the answer, these are independent cases, to be judged independently. Let us say that what happened in Baghdad is is terrorism. Now, what about the school bus? What has the one to do with the other? It is not as if what is true of one need be true or false about the other.

Directions are, of course, relative. How would that mean that actions are relative? Unless you think that directions are actions, or actions are directions. But even you..... Analogies are not much good unless they really are analogous. Otherwise, they are simply silly or (as in your own case) misleading. In any case, the one man's terrorist bumper sticker slogan (bumper sticker slogans are what leftists use instead of thought) does not say so much that "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are relative terms as that they are subjective terms.

" 'But a moment's thought'....but a moment is a very long time, and thought is very difficult". A.E. Houseman.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 11:10 am
@kennethamy,
Hi Ken,

Look at the bigger picture, stop reducing it to your view, and your view alone.
It's not your view that matters Ken (other than to you, that is) Nobody cares that you constantly answer what suits. And avoid the complete context.
It Doesn't matter - I don't care - Your opinion is as pointless to others as is theirs to you.

Do you still think the moon is made of hard cheese-rocks, by the way?

Thank you Ken, and journey well. Sir.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 12:24 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;165351 wrote:
Hi Ken,

Look at the bigger picture, stop reducing it to your view, and your view alone.
It's not your view that matters Ken (other than to you, that is) Nobody cares that you constantly answer what suits. And avoid the complete context.
It Doesn't matter - I don't care - Your opinion is as pointless to others as is theirs to you.

Do you still think the moon is made of hard cheese-rocks, by the way?

Thank you Ken, and journey well. Sir.

Mark...


So, what does it matter whether what the United States did in Iraq. Was the blowing up of small children an act of terrorism (not to mention despicable murder) or not? Regardless of what happened in Iraq. Or is it your view that two wrongs make one right? Reason, not a Welsh singing festival.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 01:43 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165368 wrote:
So, what does it matter whether what the United States did in Iraq. Was the blowing up of small children an act of terrorism (not to mention despicable murder) or not? Regardless of what happened in Iraq. Or is it your view that two wrongs make one right? Reason, not a Welsh singing festival.


Hi Ken,
It matters a lot what the ALLIES did in Iraq, to those involved. On both sides. But, not in this instance.
I don't know of welsh singing festival events. Is this relevant to your "terrorist quandry"?

Ok, The bigger picture, Ken. - You see the bus-bomber scenario as an act of terrorism, despicable, as you say. Needless destruction of innocents.
An anarchist or satanist sees it as a positive act, the former against the values of the society they abhor, the latter against mankind and God's creation. An enemy sees it as an act of undermining said societal integrity, because it introduces fear through unlikely corridors. And the wicked in heart see it as an act of retribution.

My point, Ken, is There are no good or evil acts, only opinion makes it so.

I value all life Ken, and respect the differences therein.

Thank you Ken, and expand vastly (Not anatomically though).

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 02:37 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;165412 wrote:

My point, Ken, is There are no good or evil acts, only opinion makes it so.

I value all life Ken, and respect the differences therein.

.


Therefore, I suppose that it is only your opinion that life is valuable. My opinion happens to be that no terrorist life is valuable. What is your opinion concerning my opinion that your opinion is wrong, and my opinion is right? And remember, what you opine will be only your opinion. In my opinion, of course. But apparently, in your opinion too. Right? As someone rudely observed, opinions are like A-holes. Everyone has one.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 04:28 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;165431 wrote:
Therefore, I suppose that it is only your opinion that life is valuable. My opinion happens to be that no terrorist life is valuable. What is your opinion concerning my opinion that your opinion is wrong, and my opinion is right? And remember, what you opine will be only your opinion. In my opinion, of course. But apparently, in your opinion too. Right? As someone rudely observed, opinions are like A-holes. Everyone has one.


Hi Ken,

I do not judge the value of life Ken, I simply value it. My father was special forces, s.a.s. And to him, people were players in the game, to be extinguished or retrieved, as ordered.
I am neither judge nor executioner. All seemingly horrific events have mitigating circumstances, Ken. Try not to judge so quickly. We don't uphold the death-penalty in the UK. "Cast forth the first stone, you who have not sinned". Sin has no division by degree Ken. Ever sinned?

As for my opinion in regard to my opinion of your opinion of my opinion being wrong and your opinion being right; I opine thusly - It is my opinion that your opinion of my opinion of your opinion of my opinion being wrong and your opinion being right, is your opinion and nothing more, this is my opinion. My opinion of your opinion of someone's opinion of opinions being likened to anal orifices, in my opinion is unnecessarily profane, coming from one who I believed to be of more mature standing, again, only my opinion.

Thank you Ken, and meander magnificently, Sir.

Mark...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 05:58 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;165471 wrote:
Hi Ken,

I is unnecessarily profane, coming from one who I believed to be of more mature standing, again, only my opinion.



Mark...


Not merely profane, but crude. But not unnecessarily, since it expressed my view better than any other way I could think of. Another way to put the point, and more elegantly would be, miracula sine doctrine nihil valent. But it would not pack the punch.
 
Ding an Sich
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 06:22 pm
@Neil D,
What has this to do with the thread?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 08:27:20